1958-08-26

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.) moved:: That Bill No. SD-231 entitled: "An act for the relief of Kenneth Herbert Gregory", the preamble of which has been reported as not proven, be placed on the order paper for consideration at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the bill of rights is to be dealt with at this session, he can give the house an assurance that this bill will be in our possession in adequate time to permit of its examination before that consideration begins?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The answer is yes.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house if our country will be represented at the United Nations-sponsored meeting of copper, lead and zinc producers to take place at the beginning of next month?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving to me a copy of his question before I came into the house. My answer is yes, Canada will be represented. There will be Canadian officials and industrial representatives in attendance. The meetings will start on September 8, and as
intimated by the hon. member, at those meetings questions related to copper, lead and zinc will be considered.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the government of Canada participate in the United Nations sponsored meeting of copper, lead and zinc producers to be held early next month and, if so, will the government's representatives be persons who have a knowledge of the development, production and marketing aspects of the base metal mining industry?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is a fine spirit of co-operation among hon. gentlemen on the opposition benches. That question was just asked and answered.


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question was just asked and answered but the second part struck me as adding something to the question, and it might be treated as supplementary.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give an answer to the second part of the question? I did not hear the first part on account of noise from the government side of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the reply to the second part of the question of course is yes. We would send only experienced people to a conference of this nature.



NIAGARA PENINSULA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Owing to the fact that over 1,000 tons of sour cherries were left to rot on the trees in the Niagara district because of the lack of a market, and the peach growers are faced with the same predicament, I would appreciate it if the Minister of Agriculture would say if there is any truth in the Canadian Press report that federal government price supports invoked under the price stabilization act will be instituted this year to protect peach growers and canners.
4102	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is considerable misapprehension as far as the cherry situation, which was mentioned here, is concerned. My information is that a thousand tons of cherries which growers were unable to market were put into frozen form at their own cost, and they are holding them at the present time rather than a thousand tons having been left on the trees to rot. I might say also that no request was ever received from the cherry growers for support or assistance under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
As far as the peach situation is concerned, on Wednesday last representatives of the Ontario peach growers' marketing board and processors met the stabilization board and requested assistance for 1958 processed peaches in the province of Ontario. Various proposals were considered which the growers' representatives wished to discuss with their organization. The two groups-the Ontario peach growers' marketing board and the processors-have requested a further meeting with the stabilization board on Thursday.
In other words, during the past week there have been a series of meetings and negotiations going on with the stabilization board, the peach producers' marketing board and the canners, in which I might say the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) has been taking a very active part.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government or of the C.N.R. management to dispense with Lloyd's inspection with respect to coastal boats which are operated by the Newfoundland division of the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. The management of the Canadian National advise me that they have dispensed with Lloyd's inspection, as it is considered that compliance with the regulations of the board of steamship inspection and operation under Canadian government certificate of inspection adequately provide for safe operation.
I might say that a substantial saving will be thereby effected.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister tell the house when the ferry William Carson is expected to make her first run into Port aux Basques?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. The motor vessel William Carson left North Sydney Monday night for Port aux Basques with cargo on a trial run. If the tests are successful it is hoped to have a regular service go into effect about October 1.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the house whether a copy of the agreement on the South Saskatchewan river dam project will be available to us in French?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this agreement, of course, was signed in English and I tabled the agreement which was signed in English. There were no French copies of the agreement because the people of Saskatchewan are not too familiar with that language.


Armand Dumas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we have a French copy? It can be translated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think, Mr. Speaker, the translation staff of the house can quite readily translate it into French, and I believe that can be done under the direction of the Clerk.


Armand Dumas: A further supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether a French copy of the agreement will be available before the discussion of the resolution?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I expect the discussion of that resolution will come on today. I do not know whether it is possible to translate it into French before that is done.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for some of us on this side of the house that there be an adequate translation of the agreement and that it be made available to

the house before the resolution is discussed. Since the agreement was signed some time ago it would seem to me that there has been ample time. Perhaps the matter has been overlooked, and if it has I suggest to the minister that the translation be made available before the discussion takes place.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the agreement was tabled over three weeks ago, I believe. It was tabled as it was signed, and if the hon. member for Laurier and other hon. members on the other side of the house had wished to have it translated into French they should have made their request long before now.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter whether the agreement was signed 12 months ago; surely the house is entitled to have that kind of service. There seems to me no reason why we should not have the translation of the agreement before we proceed with the discussion. There are members on this side of the house and on the other side as well who understand and read the French language much more freely than English, and it would appear to me that this should be done before we proceed with the discussion of the resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I have indicated, we are anxious to do the best we can to meet the wishes of hon. members in that regard. The translation will be made as soon as it can be done. I am merely pointing out that the hon. member should have raised this point long before this because the resolution has been on the order paper now for several days, and it was announced by the leader of the house that the matter would be discussed.


Lionel Chevrier: It should have been done without the point being raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The document is in the possession of the house as one of its papers tabled in the house, and the house simply has to give the direction that it be translated. I take it that the house wishes this document to be translated forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REPORTED EXTENSION OF U.S. IMPORT QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a report that commerce secretary Weeks of the United States is preparing a new schedule of oil import quotas for next month that will likely
Inquiries of the Ministry lead to reduced imports of oil into that country. Can the minister say what action the Canadian government is now taking to maintain this very valuable market for Canadian oil and, if possible, increase it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the article to which the hon. member refers. I would prefer to take his question as notice and reply tomorrow.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the pending end of the session, can the Prime Minister advise whether the government has given active consideration to implementing any of its policies on federal aid to education?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the final supplementary estimates are tabled-it is pointed out that I should have said "further supplementary estimates"

the hon. gentleman will have his answer in that regard.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the same general field but not on the same subject. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the many representations we are getting from small business people as to the government's intentions with regard to small businesses. Can the Prime Minister say whether any steps will be taken soon under special legislation to make money available to small businesses by way of loans?


John George Diefenbaker: The same answer applies that I made to the hon. member for Port Arthur. Provision will be made for the setting up of a small business bureau, as undertaken in the speech from the throne.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister able to say whether it is anticipated that this bureau will have moneys available for lending to small businesses? What is the answer to that question?


John George Diefenbaker: When the further supplementary estimates are tabled, government policy in this regard will be shown.

Broadcasting



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-55, to establish a board of broadcast governors and to provide for the continuance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 5-Chairman chief executive officer.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last night, we were considering clause 5 of this bill. Shall clause 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Salaries and fees.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Clause 6, Mr. Chairman, deals with the remuneration of the members of the proposed board. It is quite obvious from this clause that the board is going to be a considerable cost to the taxpayers, and that the remuneration of the members of this board will be considerably in excess of that which the board members of the corporation now receive. I believe I am right in saying that under the present legislation governing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or regulations made under that legislation, there is a ceiling on the remuneration of the executive committee of the C.B.C. of $1,000; that other members of the board of the present corporation receive $50 per meeting and expenses while they are in Ottawa, and there is a ceiling on their remuneration of $500.
The minister will probably recall that the Fowler commission recommended that remuneration of the members of the proposed board should not exceed $30,000 per annum exclusive of travelling expenses. But no such limitation, as we had on the remuneration of the members of the previous board has been included in this bill. I should think, Mr. Chairman, in view of that fact and that the remuneration of members of this proposed board has been doubled, the cost to the taxpayers might be at least $100,000 per year or even a good deal more than that.
I was wondering whether the minister or the Minister of Finance had made any estimate of the annual cost of this proposed board. It seems to me this is a very important item, as the board will be holding public meetings, which in some cases would be protracted, and extend over many days, and would be very expensive. Has the minister given any consideration to this, and could he indicate why the remuneration of the members of this board has been doubled
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
without any limit having been imposed on it, as was done under the previous act?


Mr. Nowlan:: In so far as the part-time members are concerned, the remuneration was doubled because we were advised by officers of the corporation that from their experience it was very difficult to get former members, except at great sacrifice, to come to the meetings. There was increasing difficulty during the last few years because of rising costs and so on, and members came at a real sacrifice. It was not fair to expect that to continue, and in fact some change would have been made in the remuneration payable to members of the old board if that had continued.
In so far as the ceiling itself is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition appreciates that we differed from the Fowler report, as he pointed out yesterday. We now have three full-time members who will be paid a salary fixed by the governor in council. I can say no consideration has been given to the amount which should be paid. We anticipate that we shall have to pay substantial amounts to attract the men who will be asked to fill these positions. Hence I am not in a position to give an estimate of the overall expenditure which will be made.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The minister's last observation, namely that no consideration has yet been given to the salaries that will be paid these gentlemen, raises a point in my mind. This board is to have a judicial character. It has always been a well understood principle of our constitution that the salary of judges is fixed by parliament and is never left in any way under the control of the executive. It seems to me that this is another way in which-again I am not insinuating that it would be done-it would be possible to bring pressure to bear in certain cases. It seems to me that it should be a statutory provision and not a provision made by the governor in council. I would ask the minister whether he would not consider allowing this particular clause to stand and with his colleagues give some consideration to that point.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am prepared to give consideration to all the suggestions which are made, Mr. Chairman. As I said, this bill is not finality in itself. It will be changed from time to time. But I would point out to the hon. member that the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. is paid such salary as the governor in council may determine and that the legislation which is now before us provides that the chairman of the new board shall be paid such annual salary as the governor in council shall determine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is therefore no change at all in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; but the minister will recall that what he was asserting as a great virtue of this new set-up was that it was going to be judicial, that it was going to replace the former situation where it was alleged that one competitor had jurisdiction over another. It seems to me that if, in fact, we take seriously this judicial aspect, we should follow the practice which has always been accepted, namely that any body having judicial functions should have the maximum independence that it is possible for parliament to give it. I wonder whether the minister would not allow this item to stand until after lunch, when he could have a chance to discuss it with some of his colleagues.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am in the hands of the committee, Mr. Chairman. But as far as my colleagues are concerned, may I say that we have discussed this matter and we have deliberately left it open until we had an opportunity to see how the board operates, and also what will have to be done with regard to attracting the type of people here that we want and expect. I agree with everything the hon. member says about a judicial body, but may I point out to him that the pension commission is a judicial body, and the government of which he was a member changed the salaries of the members and chairman of that board, despite the fact that it was fixed; and it was done by order in council.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: There are also other examples.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but I would recall to my hon. friend's mind that we did it over the very strenuous objections of the opposition. I think it was done before I was a member of the government, but I remember the debates very well. The most violent objections were taken by many hon. members on the other side of the house on precisely the ground that I am suggesting here. I might also point out that although the pension commission does have a semi-judicial function in some respects, at any rate, it is not the kind of body on which there would really be any suspicion that any government might wish to exert any kind of pressure. The government never appears before it as a litigant, as it does before the courts. The government would have no motive that is very easily discernible for seeking by this indirect means to bring pressure to bear on that commission.
Broadcasting
But I suggest that this is precisely what we on this side of the house are most concerned about, and what I understood the minister to say on behalf of the government they were most concerned about, namely to make this body highly judicial in its character. It seemed to me that to remove any suspicion that the government was using the remuneration to bring pressure on the board, it would be better for parliament to set the remuneration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All we are doing is trying to give the government an opportunity to follow the course which they so strongly advocated when they were on this side with respect to a body the judicial character of v/hich they have continually emphasized.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have pointed out that in the case of 12 of the 15 members the remuneration is fixed by the statute before us. The remuneration of the other three members is not fixed, and cannot be fixed at the moment because of the reasons I have mentioned. The government has to take responsibility for the choice of these men, and I can assure the committee that this government-and I think any other government, as far as that is concerned-is not going to exercise pressure on the men chosen for this board through any alteration whatsoever in the inducement respecting salaries.


Mr. Mcllraith:: This is another example of those things which would have been dealt with by the committee if the bill had been introduced in time to enable that to be done.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, because the bill would have stood the way it is.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the three members have the same salary scale, or will there be a higher salary for the chairman, a lower salary for the vice-chairman, and so on?


George Clyde Nowlan: No decision has been made on that point. Possibly the chairman will be paid a little more.


Mr. Crestohl:: I wonder if the minister can assure the committee that once the salary has been fixed by order in council there will be no move to modify that salary during their term of office.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly can give no such assurance. It would only be in an unusual situation that that would have to be done, but I can imagine a situation where a person has been appointed and performs very valuable service, and is then given an opportunity to enter some other field at a much higher rate of salary. In such a situation it is possible that the government might consider increasing the salary to keep that incumbent

Broadcasting
there. Again, the term of office is seven years, and the holder might be reappointed for a further seven years. That is a long time, and I should not care to give such a commitment as has been suggested. I do not think any responsible minister could.


Leon David Crestohl: I only had in mind a reduction in salary being made.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think there will be a reduction.


Mr. Caron:: I see there are three full-time members, and that in order to sit the board will need a quorum of five. Thus they will have to ask at least two of the part-time members to sit with them, and the remuneration paid to them is $100 a day. As it is now, the board may sit every day, month after month, and in this way part-time members may become more highly paid than those who are full-time members. Has this point been considered by the cabinet?


George Clyde Nowlan: No; consideration has not been given to that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very important
point, because one of the purposes of this board would be to hold hearings, and these hearings might be prolonged. At $100 a day plus expenses it would not be hard for part time members to reach a salary of $15,000 or $20,000. Surely that is an argument for placing a maximum on the remuneration of part-time members, as was done in the case of the C.B.C.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Staff.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice that the staff of the board are to be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I would imagine that certain of the functions of the board of broadcast governors are now being performed by certain of the staff of the C.B.C. who are not civil servants under the Civil Service Act.
I have no objection whatsoever to any new employees being appointed under the provisions of that act, but I wonder if there is any provision made for the incorporation of such employees as I have mentioned, or whether any consideration has been given to that point; because I am sure the minister does not intend to terminate the employment of people who would have no function under the reorganized C.B.C. but who, because of their experience, might I think be invaluable to the new board. I think it would be very unfortunate if persons who had been employed for a very long time should be made subject to competitive examination.

I recognize, of course, that the governor in council under the Civil Service Act has authority to appoint civil servants and to dispense with certain normal requirements of the Civil Service Act, but I should not have thought the minister would wish to proceed in that way, and I wonder whether some other provision should not be made in respect of such persons as I have mentioned.


George Clyde Nowlan: The problem of transferring individuals who, perhaps, are older and who may not wish to take examinations which could be prejudicial to them is something which will have to be dealt with. As the hon. member has said, there is provision for exemption from this requirement, and I imagine this mechanism will be used. Then if the hon. gentleman will turn to clause 41 of the bill he will see that provision is made there preserving the rights of all the employees of the C.B.C. who are under the public service act; and the intention is, if and when these employees are transferred to the civil service, by examination or by exemption or whatever method is used, that their rights will be preserved. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be no trouble whatsoever in dealing with this situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give us an assurance that there is no intention whatsoever to use this as an indirect means of getting rid of some employees?


George Clyde Nowlan: If the government should decide to get rid of some employees it would not have to use indirect means; it would use direct means.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In connection with the staff situation, I wonder if the minister has any idea of the number of staff now with the C.B.C. who would be transferred to the new board in order to make its work more effective. I am thinking particularly of audience research work, which might be very useful to the board of broadcast governors. Or there might be a possibility that the present audience research group now with the C.B.C. could do work for the board of governors on request. There is also the question of the regulation group which the C.B.C. now has in existence. Is it planned to transfer this group to the control of the board of broadcast governors?


George Clyde Nowlan: The regulatory duties now performed by the C.B.C. would be turned over to the new board, and I should think some of that staff-I am not sure of the exact division-would naturally be used by the board of broadcast governors whenever possible.

In so far as the great majority of the employees are concerned, they are of course engaged in the operating end. We have under the C.B.C. directly over 6,000 employees at the moment, and only a very small proportion of these are engaged in the regulatory work or in the program research work to which the hon. member has referred. The great majority would be staying with the C.B.C., under the control of that corporation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is another question which occurs to me. The quasi-judicial functions which will be performed by this board will obviously require it to have almost constant and continuous legal advice. Is it intended that the Department of Justice should provide legal advisers to the board in the way it does to government departments, or is it intended that the board should have a legal department of its own?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is a matter which I think will have to be left to be decided in the light of experience and the judgment of the board. No decision has yet been made, and until a decision is reached, or a change is made, the officers of the Department of Justice are being used by the government and will be used, initially at least, by the board.


Leon David Crestohl: I wonder if the minister has made an estimate with respect to the staff, regardless of where it will be recruited, from the standpoint of the cost to the country of this new set-up. Of course the money will have to be voted. Can the minister give the committee an estimate of what that is likely to cost?


George Clyde Nowlan: At the moment I am not in a position to give that estimate, Mr. Chairman. We are starting here afresh with a completely new organization. One could take the salaries and wages paid in the C.B.C. to those engaged in regulation, I suppose, and get a rough estimate, but it could only be a rough one. I would prefer not to venture a figure. We will have the responsibility of providing estimates for this body at the next session. At that time the board will be appointed. The board will make a survey and estimate what staff is required, and then we will be able to give an estimate that is an accurate appreciation of the problem for the first year, but at this stage I am not in a position to do that.


Leon David Crestohl: It is rather difficult to reach conclusions and decisions because the minister is asking parliament to give him a blank cheque, so to speak, to carry out this project. I believe it would have been advisable for
Broadcasting
the committee to be given some idea as to what this new venture is likely to cost the country.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Executive committee.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, clause 9 is a very important clause of this bill. It deals with the executive committee which, as I said last evening, will be the committee responsible, I would think, for the day to day work of this board. Three of its members will be the full-time members of the board. While I agree that in this clause the powers of the executive committee are limited in certain respects, and quite rightly so, and that this limitation will prevent it from promulgating regulations which would have to be passed by the full board in dealing with certain important matters, nevertheless the executive committee would, I assume, have the power to interpret regulations passed by the full board. That perhaps will be just as important in a body of this kind as the regulations themselves.
I take it that under this clause the executive committee can also draft proposals and regulations for consideration by the board. That is why I want to emphasize the importance of this smaller group, especially the three full-time members within it. Subclause 3 of clause 9, which as I said limits the powers of the executive committee, reads as follows:
(3) The executive committee shall exercise such of the powers and functions of the board as are delegated to it by the board, except the powers and functions of the board under sections 11 and 12 and the provisions of section 13 other than paragraph (b) of subsection (4) thereof.
Excluded from that limitation is paragraph (b) of subsection 4 of section 13. I wonder if the minister could explain why that exception was made.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. When hon. gentlemen look at paragraph (b) they will see it provides power to grant or revoke permission to a licensee to operate the broadcasting station in respect of which his licence was issued as part of any network for the broadcasting of a particular program or a series of programs extending over a period not exceeding one month. In other words there will have to be two different decisions made. Perhaps arrangements will be made for establishing a network for a hockey game, or perhaps a temporary network will be established for a series of hockey or football games over a period not exceeding one month. That is the type of network you could safely leave to a small executive committee without any suggestion of impropriety, and it would

Broadcasting
be most unfortunate if some of these things were delayed because you could not get the executive or the whole board together to provide for them.
We had an embarrassing situation with respect to the football game last Saturday night, as hon. members know. After a great deal of delay and changes made in network programs the game was telecast and the reception was terrible; you could not see it.


George James McIlraith: What was wrong?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Objects and purposes.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would not do well to explain exactly what are the objects and purposes of this clause. I have in mind now particularly the latter part of this clause, which states:
The board shall . . . regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting
stations-
-and so on. What is meant by "regulation" and what is meant by "operation"? Those are the two questions I would direct to the minister now, leaving two others for later consideration.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this simply means that the board shall regulate pursuant to clause 11, which gives it the power to make regulations. In other words the board shall have the power to establish regulations for the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations which, as the hon. member knows, is a phrase borrowed almost word for word from the existing act under which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation operates.
Clause 10 is not an operative clause. As the hon. member will appreciate, this is a general statement of powers and objects. They are defined and set forth in the following clauses, Nos. 11, 12 and 13. I believe hon. gentlemen will find that everything in clause 10 would be generally subject to the specific powers set forth in those clauses.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I take it, then, that the regulation and operation will be in the same manner as carried on heretofore?


George Clyde Nowlan: That will be a decision the new board will have to make.


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with the latter part of clause 10, which states that the board shall regulate the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them, could the minister indicate to the committee in what way the regulation of those activities is going to be
	.	-
conducted in so far as (a) the C.B.C. itself is concerned and (b) private broadcasting stations are concerned?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain that I follow the hon. member of fully understand the meaning of his question. The regulations, of course, will be generally for both private stations and the corporation as is spelled out in the act. In future the corporation will have to appear before the board if it wants a licence for a new station and be treated in the same way as any other person in that field. That wording is put there specifically to show that this board is going to have general supervision over all broadcasting in Canada, which I take it is the intention and design of this government. As I said yesterday, this is a provision that is eminently desirable so as to avoid any criticism of the C.B.C. in future for being in an invidious position vis-a-vis the private broadcasting stations. We have tried to rectify that, and that is why we have spelled out here "over private and public stations".


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I believe this clause of the bill which spells out the general purposes of the board is the most controversial clause in the bill, because it really does not give us too much to put our teeth into. The bulk of the purpose is contained in a long clause that is stuck in the middle of the paragraph. Because we feel it is not sufficiently definite, at this time I move seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia:
That this clause be struck out in its entirety and the following substituted:
The board is charged with the supervision, regulation, and control of all broadcasting in Canada in the public interest. The board is to ensure the provision of a varied and comprehensiye broadcasting service, on a national basis and with a high standard and a basically Canadian content and character; and it is to examine the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and to determine the relationship between the private and public stations.
As the minister will note, there are not too many changes from the present clause 10 except to take the first sentence from the draft act of the Fowler commission and put it in here, and then to emphasize the power of the board of broadcast governors to regulate completely, or control completely, the relationship between the public and private stations. We think this amendment will help assure those of us who are concerned about the possibility of the board of broadcast governors not carrying out the intent of this legislation in the public interest, perhaps leading to the withering away of the public broadcasting system we have. We would be much encouraged if this particular clause, which we have suggested as

an amendment, were accepted in place of the one that is now in the bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the intention expressed by the hon. member is concerned, I could have no quarrel with that whatsoever, and I think generally there is intent not to materially alter the section, perhaps, but to emphasize certain features of it. I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that this section, as was the case with all other sections but particularly with this one, engaged the attention of the chief draftsman of the Department of Justice, and a great deal of careful consideration was given to it in view of the legal questions generally involved.
I would not want to take, and I cannot take, the responsibility of accepting an amendment such as this without further consideration and without experience of operation. I think the intention is all right, but I would point out for instance that in the draft amendment which I have in my hand, which the hon. gentleman has just moved, hon. members will see that the board is charged with supervision, regulation and control of all broadcasting in Canada in the public interest. We have deliberately included in the first line or two of section 10 the words:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system-
We wanted to make it clear that we were going to continue something. Maybe there is not a material difference between the two, but we have given some importance to that point so as to see that the existing corporation and everything else are to be continued and operated. Then again, there is another clause which could be very important, because the last line but one of section 10 of the bill before us says:
-and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
That also does not appear in the draft amendment which was submitted to us. It is true that provisions for appeal except on questions of law are excluded from the bill; but all lawyers know

everyone knows-that there are means which can be taken such as certiorari or mandamus, or something of that kind, if members of the board are involved in legal matters. These words "final determination" were deliberately included in the section so that this board of broadcast governors would be able to make adjudication without having to worry too much about technical matters of a purely delaying nature which may arise.
Provision for appeal to the courts is safeguarded, as I said, on questions of law. For
57071-3-260
Broadcasting
these reasons, and because primarily the section was, as I said, considered very carefully by the justice department draftsmen, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the remarks I wished to make on section 10 and the point of view I had wished to put forward are very well embodied in the wording of this amendment which we are happy to support.
Section 10 is, I think the minister will agree, perhaps the most important section in the whole bill, and all the more important because it declares certain objects and purposes of this legislation which override anything which appears in part II of the bill dealing with the C.B.C. Indeed, I think section 29, subsection 2 of part II specifically provides that the corporation is bound by the provisions of part I. Therefore everything in part II is subject to part I and would be subject to section 10, which declares the objects and purposes of this board.
While I am quite willing to accept the statement of the minister as to these objects and purposes however they may be expressed in this section and as he has indicated in his statement, I do think it would be advisable to strengthen the language of this section, as is done in this amendment, to emphasize the importance of a national broadcasting system conducted as a public service in the public interest; something that has been emphasized by everyone concerned with this matter from Sir John Aird and Right Hon. R. B. Bennett on down. Indeed, it is also emphasized on more than one occasion in the reports of the Massey commission and the Fowler commission. But section 10, though it may be implicit, is silent in respect of that particular emphasis.
I should perhaps take advantage of this opportunity to apologize to the minister for a statement I made last night which was quite inaccurate. I think I said in one of my interventions that there was no reference to a national broadcasting system in section 10. Of course there is a reference to it, and I am sorry I was inaccurate in that sense; but reference to the national broadcasting system is not in the emphatic terms that I think it should be.
The minister has indicated that the language used here was chosen deliberately to emphasize the continued existence of a national system; but if he goes back to the C.B.C. legislation he will find that the language used there-and I will come back to the language in another section of the report-charges the C.B.C. with continuing a national broadcasting system in the public interest. It puts a definite obligation on the C.B.C. to do that

Broadcasting
in stronger terms than I suggest are used in section 10 in relation to this new board.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we think this amendment should be supported. I believe it realizes some of the objectives that we have in mind; it strengthens those objectives, and I think would make this a better bill in the public interest, improving the public service character of broadcasting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to say a word or two in support of the amendment. My method of supporting it is to examine very carefully the present clause, because it seems to me if you read the present clause without the phrase to which the minister referred, if you read the operative part of it, you will find that the board has the power to regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters, and so on. It will be seen there that all the powers the board is given are the powers to regulate; there are no powers to initiate.
Now, it is true it is said here that the board must have this purpose in mind under those regulations; but what the Fowler commission recommended and what the hon. member for Port Arthur has, I think, imported into his amendment is the power to initiate, and that is precisely what we think there ought to be. It is not good enough just to be able to regulate. It seems to me the whole concept of this clause is too negative, and for that reason it would be far better to put something in it that would be a direction, which as the Leader of the Opposition has said exists in the C.B.C. legislation now on the statute books, to initiate, that is to be the fountainhead, the inspiration of broadcasting activities, both public and private.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I find some difficulty in reconciling clause 10 as it appears in the bill with the statements of the minister. My difficulty in that respect is added to by the minister's statement a moment ago that he found no quarrel with the intention expressed by the mover of the amendment. I should like to take clause 10 and see if I can get some help from the minister on it. I want to read it and isolate certain words in doing so. It reads as follows. The board shall-
-for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character-
If you take that group of words you can see that they might well have been put in the preamble to the bill. They are a separate

statement of purpose, and probably should be in the preamble. One can express different points of view about them.


John George Diefenbaker: They would not be
effective if they were in the preamble.


George James McIlraith: That is the point I am
making. The Prime Minister has interjected that they are not effective here.


John George Diefenbaker: If they were in the preamble they would not be effective.


George James McIlraith: One might say that they contain a pious hope somewhat badly expressed. We all, of course, want a basically Canadian content and character; that is the purpose of the whole thing. We all want the continued existence of the national broadcasting system, its efficient operation and so on. The point I am getting at is that this group of words deals separately with one aspect of the matter, whether they are in a separate clause or in this one; but leaving these words aside, and I respectfully submit that is the way the clause must be read if we are to get its legal meaning, the operative part of the clause reads as follows. The board shall-
.-regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
It will be seen that there are five separate matters dealt with in this one clause, and for some strange reason they are all grouped together in this rather unusual form. The first one I dealt with, embodying a laudable statement of objectives, might well be in the preamble; but the effective and operative ones are, first, that the board shall regulate the establishment and operation of networks. That is fairly clear. Second, the board shall regulate the activities of public and private stations. I want to draw the attention of the minister to that point particularly. That means all individual stations. It is perhaps clear enough with respect to the privately owned stations, but in the case of the C.B.C. it means that the board can regulate the activities of an individual station in the network operated by the C.B.C. From anything said by the minister I do not think that was intended. I do not think that is the purpose of the bill.
Third, the board can regulate the relationship between individual stations, so the board can regulate the relationship between two individual stations operated by the publicly owned organization, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There has been no suggestion that this is what was intended.

Then there is the other provision to which the minister referred a minute ago. In the fourth place it should be noted that the board can provide, not regulate, for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto. I take it that "in relation thereto" relates to any of the matters previously mentioned. Therefore the board can provide for the final determination of all matters in relation to individual stations.
That is the point that is causing me concern. I think I intimated last night that I understood the minister's objectives and what he was seeking to do, but I find myself in great difficulty in dealing with this clause. Notwithstanding what the minister said about the draftmanship of clause 10, I respectfully submit that it does not do the things that he has expressed himself as wishing to do. Indeed, it causes considerable alarm because the board is given the power to meddle in detailed matters concerning individual stations. That is the point I wish to make and which is concerning me. If it does that, then it comes immediately and directly into conflict with the C.B.C. which is operating the publicly owned stations. It is not the part about regulating networks that is bothering me at all, but rather the power to interfere in matters concerning individual stations as such. I should like to have the minister's comment on that point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am tempted to rise, Mr. Chairman, because in looking at the minister I have come to the conclusion that he is almost persuaded. I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur and his explanation in regard thereto. I am not going to repeat what he said. We fully realize that if the amendment is accepted by the minister, and I see us getting closer to our objective as the minutes go by, there will have to be one or two other amendments in part II to give effect to this amendment, but we can deal with them later provided we can persuade the minister that this amendment is necessary.
In that connection I want to read one paragraph from a press release issued yesterday by the Canadian broadcasting league. The minister knows that this organization is composed of people who have taken a very serious interest in Canadian broadcasting policy over a long period of time. This is what they have to say:
The Canadian broadcasting league has carefully considered the new broadcasting bill. The league welcomes the government's statements on the intention of the new legislation. It welcomes also the fact that the bill preserves the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and appears to provide for a single national broadcasting system under the control of a large representative board of broadcast governors. The league believes, however, the
57071-3-260J
Broadcasting
bill should make this principle absolutely clear by two additional provisions: First, the board of broadcast governors should be explicitly charged with the duty of reporting on the whole of broadcasting in Canada, public and private. Second, the C.B.C., as part of the single national system, should report to the board of broadcast governors. We hope these points will be cleared up during the debate.
I am not going to take any more time. I wanted to bring that paragraph to the attention of the minister and the committee. In view of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the proposals made by members of the official opposition I would urge the minister to give further consideration to the amendment of this clause to give effect to the wishes of those who are seriously concerned with making certain that the minister attains his own objectives with respect to the purposes of the bill.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister is letting a number of questions accumulate and will answer them together. I am concerned about the phrase in line 20, "for the final determination of all matters"! I draw the minister's attention to the fact that clause 10, consisting of about 9 lines, is all one sentence. It is an unusually long sentence, and I have some apprehension when that long sentence is wound up with the words that the board shall "provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto".
I wonder whether the minister, who is a well known solicitor, thinks that under this clause, if there is dissatisfaction it might be difficult for that person to refer the matter, as is the inherent right of everyone, to the courts. Does he not think those words "for final determination of all matters" would be difficult to overcome unless some provision is made to allow any citizen who is displeased with any part whatever of that long sentence to have full recourse to the courts?


George Clyde Nowlan: The general intention indicated by all those who have spoken in favour of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is in agreement with the attitude of the government. There is no question whatever but that it is intended to operate this board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the public interest, and that surely does not have to be spelled out. It is implicit in every section of the bill and in everything I and the other members of the government have said on this bill.
As I said earlier, I am not prepared to accept the responsibility for changing the clause at this time, a clause on which a good deal of time was spent by a very, shall we say, careful draftsman. I could go further than that, as the hon. member for Ottawa West well knows. The government cannot accept

Broadcasting
this amendment, although it certainly accepts the intention implicit in it.
In so far as the hon. member for Ottawa West analysed the clause, I am inclined to accept his analysis, at any rate the first part. In so far as objects and powers are concerned, I am not sure where objects leave off and powers begin. This is a general statement. I would not want to go as far as he did in his description of it, and he could not expect me to accept that. However, this is a general statement of intention. I cannot accept at all the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that it is purely negative, because after all you have to read this general statement with the powers set forth in clauses 11, 12 and 13. There is certainly nothing negative in those. There are powers to initiate and all sorts of powers. When you spell out those powers and take them in addition to clause 10, I think you will have everything this committee requires in so far as protective measures are concerned.
As I said yesterday, and as is axiomatic, it does not make very much difference what words you have in these clauses so long as you have personnel appointed who are going to see that the measure is administered in accordance with the intentions. If they are going to administer this in the national interest, then the public is going to be protected. You can have all the safeguarding sections in the world, but if you have administrators who take a careless attitude it will not do any good. I believe, and the government believes, that this clause 10 does spell out, in general terms followed by succeeding clauses, that broadcasting will be in the national interests of Canada. We have to ask the committee to accept clause 10 as it is presently drafted.


George James McIlraith: The last question I raised related to the fifth power given to the board under this clause, that the board shall provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto. Bearing in mind that the board can deal with individual stations, I wonder if the minister would address himself to that point; because as I see it, the board is given the power to go into activities and the determination of questions in relation to individual stations. That would be directly in conflict with matters which would be regarded as normal and proper activities of the C.B.C. I wonder if the minister would address himself to just that aspect of the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: It may be that these words are capable of the wide interpretation the hon. member has given them, but it is certainly not the intention of the government. I point out to him, as he undoubtedly

knows, that when he speaks of a network operated by the C.B.C. you have first the publicly owned stations, which are owned by the C.B.C., and then you have various classes of affiliates, some who asked to be affiliated and some who have been ordered, shall we say, to be affiliated. There are various categories there, the details of which I have not got but which I will have when we come to the second section of the bill.
Reverting to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa West, I may say I thought it was improper to have the officers of the C.B.C. sitting in front of me to deal with this part of the bill so far as the board of broadcast governors is concerned because they are strangers, so to speak, to it. So far as the C.B.C. is concerned, when we come to the second part dealing with it, then with the committee's consent I intend to have officers of the C.B.C. here so that any questions dealing with the corporation can be answered at that time. If there is the implication that the hon. member reads into that section, it is because of the various classes of stations which are affiliated with the C.B.C. The hon. member will also notice that the board has the power, at the request of a station and after a public hearing of which the C.B.C. has been given notice, to permit the station to withdraw from that affiliation.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could clarify my point for the minister. My concern was not with this power as it concerns networks or groups of stations, but as it concerns individual stations. That was my concern.


George Clyde Nowlan: There are individual stations within a network, and various categories of stations. A subsequent clause gives them the right, if they wish, to withdraw. There has to be some control over these stations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Incidentally, may I mention a small matter. I do not think I used the word "negative" in my description of this paragraph at all. Someone else may have done so. The clause says that the board shall regulate the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them. I do not know whether or not this point was brought up in the previous discussion, but my non-legal mind was not able to follow all its ramifications. Does this clause mean that the board shall regulate the relationship between separate private broadcasting stations and not merely the relationships between private and public stations, that is the relationship between stations within each category?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the intention is to regulate public and private stations and their relationship to each other. I do not believe

the board would, except in so far as there was an infringement or a matter affecting a particular regulation, act as a judge or adjudicator on matters affecting two private stations, unless it came within the scope of the next three sections.
While I appreciate the attention which has been given to clause 10, because it is a general statement, frankly I think most lawyers in this house would agree privately that clause 10 is not operative except as it is interpreted by the three succeeding clauses, which in my opinion are the heart of the bill from an operative standpoint.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is satisfied that the language in clause 10 could not be used for the purpose of regulation as between separate private stations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister is quite sure about that, because an example of one kind of situation which does arise between private stations has been drawn to the minister's attention, I believe, in this house. This case concerned stations, somewhat remote geographically from one another, which had almost the same wave length, and this resulted in a real conflict between the private stations. I would apprehend that the board would have power to deal with that; or would it come within the purview of the Department of Transport?


George Clyde Nowlan: Without any question I would think that would come within the purview of the board. As I explained to the Leader of the Opposition, I was very careful to say "subject to the specific powers set forth in the next three sections". Anything which arises in the following sections generally-I will not say "anything" but generally- would come within the purview of the board for adjudication. All these matters, I would think, would be dealt with generally by the board.


Mr.   Mc@: Bearing in mind the minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, if you look at line 18 you find this language. The board shall-
-regulate . . . the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them.
He will note that from the way in which it is now drafted, "between them" relates to "stations". If he wanted to do what he just expressed to the Leader of the Opposition, should he not repeat the words "broadcasting stations" after the word "public" and before the word "and" in line 18, so it would read:
The board shall . . . regulate . . . the activities of public broadcasting stations and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them.
Broadcasting
"Between them" would obviously then relate to the two groups of stations as opposed to the individual. That was one of the difficulties that concerned us.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur moves-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Before the question is put to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question of the minister. Is this clause 10 to be prepared just for those who have legal training? It is hard to understand for one who has not such training. In my opinion the amendment seems to be easier to understand for those who have not legal training. The discussion between the hon. member for Ottawa West and the minister, both of whom are good lawyers, seems to be comprehensible; but when we come to read it, those who have not the training do not seem to understand this clause 10 as clearly as we understand the amendment which appears to accomplish the same purpose.
This is why I do not understand why the amendment was not accepted. It does not seem to have any very important change in it, but it seems to be much clearer for the balance of the people in Canada when they come to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Clyde Nowlan: I accept the statement that the intention is the same, either with respect to the other amendments or the one that is now before us, except that the clause provides for final determination and also provides what I think is more important for ensuring the continued existence of the system. The difference between them may not be so very great. The hon. member for Hull says this is a legal argument. The hon. member for Ottawa West refers to this as a sort of platitude. I therefore do not think that perhaps legal questions are so much involved in any event.
In any case, I stand on the explanation I gave at the beginning. This is a section which has been very carefully drafted and has been reviewed over and over again by the draftsman. I am not prepared to take responsibility myself for accepting an amendment to it, even though I think the amendment is of the same tenor and the same spirit. Nevertheless the legal implications, as the hon. member for Ottawa West and others know, can be different. We therefore must ask the committee to accept the section as it is now before it.

Broadcasting


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The question is as follows: The hon. member for Port Arthur moves:
That clause 10 be struck out in its entirety and the following substituted:
The hoard is charged with the supervision, regulation and control of all broadcasting in Canada in the public interest. The board is to ensure the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service, on a national basis and with a high standard and a basically Canadian content and character; and it is to examine the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and to determine the relationship between the private and public stations.
Before I put the question I should inform the committee that it is the opinion of the Chair that the proposed amendment is irregular in this sense, that you cannot delete a clause by means of an amendment. This clause should be negatived before inserting a new one. In support of this proposition I believe that Beauchesne should be read, citations 402, 404 and 408. In clause 402, subparagraph (1) we find the following:
(1) In committee all the clauses of the bill are considered before any new clauses are brought up and added to the bill. But this practice is not rigorously followed and the committee is generally guided by what is most convenient in each particular case.
In this particular case I believe that for the sake of expediency the question should be put to the committee.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 86.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Regulations.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we shall have some specific proposals with regard to the subsection and perhaps some amendments. However, there are one or two general observations on the whole section that I should like to make to the minister, and perhaps he will be able to enlighten me on one or two of the points I am going to raise.
This section, with the following section 12, I take it is the one which will implement section 10 which has relation to the objects and purposes of the bill. As I understand it-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-this section, indeed the bill itself, does not provide-as have all previous broadcasting bills and as various commissions dealing with broadcasting have recommended- that the C.B.C. shall have control over the operation of even its own network. I take it that this section takes away from the C.B.C. and gives to the new board the power to determine the amount of time affiliated stations should be required to use in broadcasting C.B.C. network programs.
The Fowler commission had something to say on this very important point on page 120

of its report, and I quote from this report because it has a very definite bearing on this clause. The report reads:
Once a network has been established and the affiliation of private stations with it has been approved, the operation of that network should be the exclusive responsibility of the C.B.C., subject only to the general supervision of the board of broadcast governors. The C.B.C. should have the power to prescribe the periods to be reserved by any private affiliated station for the broadcasting of programs produced or obtained by the C.B.C. The C.B.C. should have full authority to get programs forming part of the national broadcasting service out across Canada, over both C.B.C. and affiliated private stations.
And further:
We think that, as in the past, the C.B.C. should have the necessary authority to operate the national television and radio networks it has been authorized to establish.
As I read it, this clause takes away from the C.B.C. authority over its own network. The Fowler commission, also I think on page 120, recommended that the C.B.C. should have power-and someone has to have that power -to decide when a program is of such national importance that it should be carried by all the private stations, and I should like to ask the minister whether that has been changed also by clause 11.


George Clyde Nowlan: Clause 11, the power to make regulations, includes, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, power to determine the minimum broadcasting time to be reserved for network programs by any broadcasting station operating as part of a network. The board of governors undoubtedly has power to make regulations in such a matter, and generally to prescribe the terms and conditions for the operation of broadcasting stations as part of a network, and all the rest of it.
We shall come to the network in a short time, I hope, and there the powers are specifically spelled out. No change can be made in any network in which the C.B.C. is interested, or to which it is affiliated, without a public hearing to which the C.B.C. is invited and at which the corporation is given an opportunity to be present. There are three powers with respect to networks: first, compelling a station to come into a network, making it a condition of getting a licence that it shall become part of a network; second, taking a station in operation and compelling it to become part of the network; and third, providing that the board may at any time upon the application of a licensee revoke or amend the condition after a hearing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subclause (d) of clause 11 provides that the board may make regulations:
-respecting the proportion of time that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan political character.
I should like to say at once, in order that the question may be before the committee, that I wish to move an amendment to this clause which would read as follows:
That section 11 (d) be amended by deleting all the words after "progress" and adding: "of a partisan political character, the same regulations to apply to each individual station, whether privately or publicly owned."
I should like at this point to say a word or two about this proposed amendment, because I want hon. members to be well aware of what I intend the effect should be. It would mean that the same regulations with respect to compulsory broadcasting for political purposes would apply to private stations as apply to public stations.
It seems to me the justification for this is that the whole of the broadcast area is a public domain. The private stations have franchises but they do not have any absolute property, as the minister knows; and it does seem to me that it is in the public interest, particularly in the television field, in view of the fact that there are public stations only in five or six places in Canada and private stations elsewhere, that the same rules should apply in both.
That is not the case now. It has not been the case during the last two elections, and that situation has led to some very bizarre results. I am not going to waste the time of the committee by enumerating them. However, there is another and more serious problem in this field. I think every member of parliament of whatever party must be concerned about the growing cost of elections in this country, the growing sums that political parties and candidates have to raise by one means or another-and I am not going into that-in order to get themselves elected. And it does seem to me, further, that here we have a part of the public domain, something which belongs to the whole of the people of Canada, and one over which this parliament has jurisdiction.
While I have never been completely satisfied with the apportionment of the time allotted by broadcasting and television stations-I do not think any political party has been completely satisfied-I have never thought that it was grossly out of proportion. However, if we were to apply the same rules to both public and private stations that would eliminate the undesirable competition which now goes on during election periods to buy up great quantities of time, boring the
Broadcasting
listeners in many cases and increasing, to no one's real advantage, the already far too high cost of elections.


An hon. Member:: Don't you take well?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told there are people who are worse. I really do not fear this competition myself. All I am worried about are the bills that come in afterwards, and I think that is a common experience in this house. If we had one set of rules applying to both public and private stations there would be a great and immediate reduction in the cost of elections, a reduction which would be very much in the public interest and which would not be contrary to the interests of the stations, either, because my experience is that many of these radio stations do not like to have their normal programs disturbed to the extent they are disturbed during election campaigns by these competitive political programs.
I do not know too much about it, but I am told the stations charge much higher rates on that account than they charge to other clients, because it is temporary business; and I think we would all say "thank God for that". But here is something we could do in a completely non-partisan way which it seems to me would be good for parliament and good for the country.
I am putting this forward in as noncontentious a way as I can. It may be that the minister would prefer to have stand this amendment for a little while, and that in the meantime he would wish us to go on to consider other aspects of this bill, because I admit no advance notice of it has been given, and this is a very important subject. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that no one in any part of the committee would suffer any disability, that the broadcasting interests both public and private, would suffer no injury, and that it would conduce to a better atmosphere and a better standard of public life.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the house ready for the question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps in fairness to the hon. member I had better say something. This matter received a great deal of consideration by the various people who were working on this bill over a period of months. The hon. member knows pretty well who many of those were. Personally I think that it is unfortunate it is in here at all. I do not think the board of broadcast governors should be responsible for the allocation of political time. Consideration was given to various amendments.
I do not know how many hon. members know this, but under the C.B.C. regulations

Broadcasting
as they apply today if there happens to be a town council by-election in Wolfville or Port Alberni, then the C.B.C. is not supposed to broadcast political programs for three days prior to that by-election although there may be a provincial general election in Ontario. That is the existing regulation which has application to federal, provincial or municipal elections. The thing is just silly.
I do not believe the board of broadcast governors should be saddled with dividing or allocating this time any more than the C.B.C. should have been in the past. After a great deal of discussion we felt it might be allowed to stand this way; the elections committee of the House of Commons would be set up in the relatively near future, and that would be a much better forum in which to discuss this question and arrive at some solution with respect to political broadcasts and so on, rather than attempting to deal with it by way of amendments or by a board outside the control of parliament. That is why the regulation is as it is at the moment. I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw his amendment and allow the matter to stand over until next year, when something really has to be done about the whole problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before I make any decision on that point I should like to ask the minister a question. As I read this, and it may be in the same language as the act-


George Clyde Nowlan: It is; at least, I am told that it is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I have not checked it and I do not know either. Perhaps I should have checked it before I got up. As I read the clause it says nothing about allocation. I had the impression, which may be quite wrong, that under the Canadian Broadcasting Act the board was expressly charged with the responsibility of allocating time as well. It may be that was done simply by the extension of a phrase such as that contained in this clause; I do not know. It would hardly appear to me that this language by itself would give the board of broadcast governors power to allocate time as between parties, for example.
I am a little perturbed as to whether we are going to leave a gap in the law here in this statute, because we are repealing the Canadian Broadcasting Act which gives that body the power to allocate time, and in this bill we do not seem to make such a provision. I can find nothing in the bill to that effect, although the minister may point out that I am wrong. We are repealing that provision of the existing law and in this bill we have

put nothing in its place. That would be a very serious step for this parliament to take, because it would mean no one would have that power until there was further legislation. I do not think any of us anticipates a federal general election between now and the next session of parliament, and much as I would like to see a change of government I do not feel I would be in favour of a general election at this time.


Mr. Green:: You might lose your seat.


Mr. Monieiih (Perth):: You might be
decimated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, it might very well be that before the next session of parliament a general election would take place in one of the provinces. I would think we would be acting in a rather irresponsible fashion in this chamber if we were to repeal the present law respecting the allocation of time and put nothing whatever in its place. I wonder if the minister would give some consideration to that point.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to take a second look at that. We will let it stand for the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to have my amendment stand for the time being, until we see what is the situation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Under the existing law the power concerning allocation of time is contained in section 21, subsection 1 (e) of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which reads as follows:
The corporation may make regulations-
(e) to prescribe the proportion of time that may be devoted to political broadcasts by the stations of the corporation and by private stations, and to assign such time on an equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates.
I know there was a great deal of discussion while the drafting was going on about the unpleasant task of allocating time as among the parties. They wanted to avoid that, and that portion was struck out. I will check with the officials on that score.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is an unpleasant task, Mr. Chairman, but someone has to do it; and until parliament prescribes some other method I feel we should put back the language that is in the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Perhaps the whole clause could stand for the moment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it could stand until after one o'clock, and in the meantime I will speak to the officials.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If things are as the minister stated in regard to Port Alberni and Wolfville, why did he leave clause 17 (d) as

it stands? As to his suggestion that this be considered by the committee on elections, I believe that could be quite unfair from the point of view that we have C.B.C. provincial networks. As the minister may be aware, our committees represent the general proportion of the house so far as parties are concerned but there may be some places in Canada where the C.B.C. has provincial networks where this proportion would not exist at all, reflecting the provincial set-up. If the committee of this house has the power to do things of this sort, it would have the power to work against the political situation in a province that is not reflected in this house at all. I wonder how much the minister has thought about turning over to the committee on elections of this house the determination of both the character of political programs and the amount of time and the allocation of time?


George Clyde Nowlan: The thinking was more negative than positive. The thought was that we did not want to start fundamentally changing the law with respect to political broadcasting in this bill because we might be tied up for a week on a discussion of all sorts of suspect motives which might be alleged. The thought came to us that probably referring it to the committee would provide a better medium, although frankly I never thought of the point the hon. member just raised, at least in so far as federal broadcasting is concerned. Referring it to the elections committee was a very good excuse for not trying to cope with those clauses at the moment but to bring forward the sections from the old act into the new bill for the time being.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I could direct a question to the hon. member who moved the amendment. Is it his intention that the amendment should put the private stations in exactly the same sort of situation at election time as exists in the C.B.C.; that is, that there will be a division made by some central place of the amount of time the private stations shall allocate to the various candidates? If that is so, how does he propose to reconcile the fact that the C.B.C. divides the time roughly in proportion to the number of candidates, the number of votes and that sort of thing, whereas in a private station you get the amount of time for which you are able to pay? It seems to me you have two things in conflict there, and I am wondering about the intent of the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know if this is a regular proceeding, Mr. Chairman, but since the question interests all of us I might reply in part. The hon. member put his finger on it at the very end of his statement; it is the amount which you pay. In moving this 57071-3-201
Broadcasting
amendment my thought was that there should be nothing more paid for time on private stations than could be paid for time on public stations, and that whatever regulations apply would apply uniformly to public and private stations. There are certain areas in this country where we have only public stations, and where local broadcasts are given during election time. There would obviously have to be different regulations for the broadcasts of the national political parties and of the individual candidates; that is quite obvious.
I have not worked out a scheme in any great detail, though I have given an enormous amount of consideration to the subject. I am not going to trespass on the time of the committee by giving my views on it at the present time. I feel that this is the public domain and that it should not be necessary for members of parliament or political parties to pay any more for time on private stations than on public stations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I quite agree with the latter part of the hon. member's remarks, Mr. Chairman, but 1962 is an election year which this particular group is looking forward to with a great deal of anticipation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We feel that for the first time in that election we shall have the money to play an equal part in buying time on private stations.


George Harris Hees: Where are you going to get it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this what the hon. member means by his championship of small business?


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the proposed amendment has been allowed to stand. If that is so, I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on paragraph (b) of section 11, dealing with standards of programs. It is a serious matter and the hon. member for Port Arthur, for example, attempted to illustrate it. What yardstick will the board of governors use to establish those standards? Will there be a board of censors created; will there be a board on morals; will there be a board of artists and musicians? I would appreciate it if the minister will inform the committee what yardstick, what basis, will be used for establishing the standards of programs as envisaged in section 11, paragraph (b).


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Chairman, except to say, as has been said time and time again, that we propose and hope to choose Canadians, men and women across this country, representing the

Broadcasting
nation as a whole, and it will be left to their judgment as to what standards will be set. 1 certainly would not think we would ever reach the time when there would be censorship imposed except that which is imposed by the good taste and good judgment of relatively average Canadian citizens across this country, though it is always a threat, as I gathered an offer was made last night which was stopped because of the violation of the rules.
I thought it was rather a unique situation that the Leader of the Opposition and the others who were here were very ably contending that we may be threatening to interfere with the C.B.C. in some way, and another hon. member followed by attacking me because I had not imposed censorship on the C.B.C. This is a problem you always have when people who feel it is justified are looking for censorship. Perhaps it is justified. Once you accept that for one thing which you think is right, somebody else may come along and ask for something which you think is wrong, and freedom is gone completely.
I do not think censorship should ever be imposed, and I am quite certain that any board which this government chooses would not be one which would want to impose censorship in the language which the hon. member used.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think anyone on this side last night or on any other occasion ever advocated censorship of the C.B.C. One member, the hon. member for Port Arthur, did advocate in very strong terms that the C.B.C. itself should use better judgment in the selection of a particular program in the interests of better relations between Canada and the United States.


George Clyde Nowlan: If I followed him, he
criticized me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He criticized the C.B.C. for a particular program. I want to make it quite clear that no one on this side would advocate any kind of censorship on the C.B.C., of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend. The point, however, is a very valid and very important one. What are the standards which are to apply? I know the difficulty the minister is in, and we too would be in were it our responsibility.
Before I sit down I wish to go back to the minister's reply to my earlier statement. I want to be quite certain in my own mind that I understand exactly what he said. Perhaps he will tell me whether I am right in my understanding of what he did say. My understanding is that the minister has now said that the exclusive responsibility

of the C.B.C. for its own networks, something which was recommended by the Fowler commission, has now been altered and it is now subject to the control of the board of broadcast governors. At least in some respects that exclusive responsibility of the C.B.C. for its own networks has been altered.
I also understood the minister to say-it did not deal with my questions specifically, but I think it was implied in what he said- that it will now be the board of broadcast governors and not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who will decide that a program is of such national importance as to be carried by any private station. I take it that is a correct understanding of what the minister said in reply to me some time ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: Subject to the sections to which I referred, I think that is a correct statement, Mr. Chairman. The C.B.C. comes under the general powers as enumerated in part I of the bill; but it should also be pointed out to start with that the C.B.C. takes over the new corporation, call it the board of directors if you like. It takes over, shall we say, holus bolus all the regulations, all the networks, everything which was established by the C.B.C. prior to the proclamation of this legislation. That will be taken over by the C.B.C. in its entirety and then changes may be made afterwards, if at all. They start with everything I have promulgated and everything which is a part of their system.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to ask the minister another question which I think is of considerable importance. It represents, as I understand it, an exact reversal of the situation we have been discussing and have been asking the minister about. I refer to a situation where the C.B.C. did have certain powers which the proposed board of governors does not have. I can find nothing in this section, or indeed in the bill, which would give the proposed board the power which I think the C.B.C. now has to prevent stations from becoming members of networks operated by persons or governments outside Canada. As I read this bill, it will be possible under it, and I do not think it is possible at present, for a private station or a group of private stations to associate itself or themselves with networks or stations in the United States and broadcast-if I may use the expression-on the cheap by the use of United States program material. If that is the situation under this bill, and if this bill does not provide in section 11 or in some other section adequate guarantees in that respect, then we propose to move an amendment; but before we do that I would like to

hear whether my understanding is right. Perhaps after 2.30 the minister might enlighten us on this point.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister given any further consideration, not so much to the amendment I moved to clause 11 (d) as to the gap in the legislation?


George Clyde Nowlan: I discussed the so-called gap in the legislation with some of the C.B.C. officials during the lunch hour. The gap to which the hon. member refers is found in the words "and to assign such time on an equitable basis". I am told that as a matter of practice that has not been done for some years by the C.B.C., and that it has been impossible to enforce it. I am told that they have brought those concerned together and tried to work out some agreement, but there is the difficulty of political parties and the difficulty of political groups, some of which may be parties and some of which may have had substantial representation but have now lost it. Altogether it was felt that it would place an intolerable burden on these officials to attempt to assign the time. I have no objection at all to the amendment in principle, but I simply say that as a matter of practice it has not been done for some years and the officials frankly think that it cannot be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is speaking from hearsay but I can speak from something more than that, because I took part in the negotiations respecting the 1957 election on behalf of the Liberal party. I can say not from hearsay but from my personal knowledge that it was not possible to reach complete agreement on that occasion, as it was not possible before the 1957 election, and in fact the C.B.C. did eventually assign the time. I do not say they would need to use the power, but it seems to me that the power should be there in case it should be necessary to use it. Therefore I think the minister should consider putting back in for the time being the words that were in the previous statute, until parliament can do something else about it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am prepared to accept that, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: It has been moved by Mr. Pickersgill that section 11 (d) be amended by adding the following words: "the same regulations to apply to each individual station, whether privately or publicly owned." 57071-3-261|
Broadcasting


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this point, Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has just said and in view of the opportunity we have had to air the matter, if the minister were prepared to give the assurance that at the next session of parliament the whole question of political broadcasting would, on the initiative of a member of the government, be remitted to the committee on privileges and elections for study with a view to making recommendations as to suitable legislation, because this is not the kind of legislation the government should design-


George Clyde Nowlan: I am perfectly prepared to do that. I felt that I could not accept the amendment in the words in which it was phrased.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize that. I should like to finish what I was saying. As far as my personal convictions are concerned, I believe this is a sound amendment; but I do think I would be subjecting myself and any of my friends who voted for it to the same kind of criticism to which we are subjecting the government over this bill if I were to press it at this stage. It does seem to me that this is a very big and complicated subject which should be properly studied by a committee before the law is changed.
Having accomplished the purpose I had in mind of having the subject aired, I would be quite prepared, if the committee is agreeable to my doing so, to withdraw my amendment on the understanding the minister has already given us, that he or some other member of the administration will take the initiative at the beginning of the next session of parliament, and not in its dying days, to bring the whole question of political broadcasting before the committee on privileges and elections for study and report, and on the further understanding that the minister will move an amendment to this clause to put back the provision for the assignment of time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. I will have one of my colleagues move that the words "and to assign such time on an equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates" be added to subsection (d).


Charles Edward Rea: May we get rid of
the first amendment? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member be permitted to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Charles Edward Rea: May we have the minister's amendment in writing?

Broadcasting


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: move:
That the following words be added to clause 11, subsection (d): "and to assign such time on an equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 11 as amended carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to look into the matter I brought up just before lunch hour, when I tried to point out that the power which I understood the C.B.C. has to prevent private stations affiliating with United States networks or stations, except for a special program, has not been transferred to the board of broadcast governors. I understand that there were certain stations, before the C.B.C. came into existence, which did have such an association or affiliation, and that was not interfered with; but when the C.B.C. came into existence it did not permit that kind of association with United States networks, except for single programs of national interest. I certainly would hate to do anything that would prevent, for instance, broadcasts of the world series.
However, I do not find anything of that kind in this clause or any other clause of the bill, which transfers that particular authority of the C.B.C. to the proposed board of broadcast governors; therefore presumably that kind of association or affiliation could take place.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not found the particular clause to which the hon. member refers. I think it was done by regulation under the C.B.C. and those same powers of regulation are transferred to the board of broadcast governors today. When we go on through clauses 11, 12 and 13, particularly 13 dealing with network programs, you will find that no network, in any way, shape or form can be operated, and no station can join a network, without specific approval of the board of broadcast governors. Although the C.B.C. will not have that power in the future, it will be vested completely in the board and will be exercised by that board.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So that in a sense the new board will have exactly the same authority as the C.B.C., if not in law then at least in practice?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


Chesley William Carter: Paragraph (f) gives the board the power to compel licensees to broadcast network programs of public interest or significance. Does that mean that the board can compel private stations to incur a loss in carrying these programs, or are they recompensed from public funds?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


George Clyde Nowlan: The board will have the power to compel stations to carry programs of public interest.


Chesley William Carter: Yes; but at a loss, or is the loss made up in some way?


George Clyde Nowlan: That would depend upon the facts of each case. The board is given the power under this clause to do things on terms and conditions, so it would be possible for the board, if they thought the circumstances warranted it, to make such an order under certain terms or certain conditions. In other words, perhaps the station could be paid if the circumstances justified it.


Leon David Crestohl: Subclause 2 again refers to a licensee. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister whether or not the definition of licensee was complete. I wonder whether the minister could tell us if a licence will be required other than under the Radio Act, because this is the Broadcasting Act. If the word "licensee" is intended to cover both acts, it should be stated that a "licensee" means a person licensed under the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act, that is unless no licences are required under the Broadcasting Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: The licence procedure is set forth in clause 12, which says that "the Minister of Transport shall, before dealing with an application under the Radio Act", so it is under the Radio Act that the licence is granted and that is why that definition is used in the interpretation section. This clause means a person licensed under the Radio Act. There is no change whatever, in that procedure, I understand, except that under this clause the licence shall be authorized on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors rather than the board of governors of the C.B.C. Of course the hon. gentleman will appreciate also that there are many other licences such as those to the police and those who operate short wave stations,-that is why we were very chary about dealing with this matter-and all those things are under the Radio Act. We have left the Radio Act intact so far as this bill is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Applications for licences to be referred to the board.
Mr. Forgie:: Prior to the last election I was in communication with the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. regarding the television situation in Pembroke, where the reception is very poor. I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, because I noticed that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked a question about this matter yesterday, whether it would not be

possible for us to secure a satellite in the Pembroke area. Reception in the territory from Codben west is exceptionally poor. I saw the warning of the minister that he is not prepared to deal with many of these questions, but I would ask for his sympathetic consideration in respect to this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: In the past the decision has been made by the board of governors of the C.B.C., and it will be made by the board of broadcast governors in the future. I said I had the advantage of knowing something about the satellite expansion program, and so was able to answer the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. However, if the hon. member will defer his question until my estimates are before the committee I shall deal with it specifically then.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is a point in connection with licensing in general, and I suppose it involves policy, which I should like to mention. I wonder if the minister could tell us anything about it. There has been a suggestion that a private television station at Port Arthur may establish its own satellite, somewhat in the same way the Timmins station has established its particular satellite. I believe the people of the area generally would be very pleased with this, but not if that particular satellite, by taking care of one part of the nodal population, will mean that the whole population will not get television service through the C.B.C.
This brings up the point as to who is to make the decision when the C.B.C. should move into a certain area. If this particular station in Port Arthur puts up a satellite down along the north shore it is quite possible, given the power that it could set up in that very good location, that it will take care of the nodal population to the extent of 5,000, which was the standard set by the Fowler commission as being the least number practical from the point of view of setting up a transmitter. However, if the fringe area of this new satellite were to be included in another nodal area to the north, it would give more than a population of 5,000. I just wondered if the minister had any ideas as to how this very difficult matter could be handled.


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot give the hon. member a solution, but I can tell him the mechanics of it. If he looks at subclauses 3 and 4 of the present clause, he will find that we start off with the fact that no recommendation shall be made by the board on any matter unless it has held a public hearing at which the applicant, the corporation and other interested licensees have been given an opportunity to be heard. The first thing is
Broadcasting
that you have to have a public hearing before you can come to a decision.
Then I draw attention particularly to subclause 4. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition yesterday who asked me if there was a reference somewhere to the public interest. If you read subsection 4 of this section you find this provision:
(4) No recommendation to issue a licence shall be made unless, in the opinion of the board, it would be consistent with the purposes of this part and in the public interest to do so.
So in the particular case to which my hon. friend refers the board, after hearing all the parties, will have to decide on the merits wherein lay the obligation in the public interest, and the decision would have to be made accordingly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In this particular case as to the announcement the minister made a few weeks ago on the C.B.C. plans, they will have to come before this board of broadcast governors before any action is taken. Is that right?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would not want to say definitely on that matter. Those plans are in process of fruition now, as I told the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It would depend to some extent when the personnel are appointed and when the board is ready to take over. It may be in October or in November. In the meantime the plans for the C.B.C. for this summer I hope will be fairly well advanced. The new board will, of course, have to take this matter into consideration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We hope those plans will go ahead. We would hate to see Kenora-Rainy River without its television station, but even there a problem arises. How are communities around Kenora-Rainy River, such as Sioux Lookout or Dryden and places like that, going to be informed or understand the fact that they could make certain presentations which would suggest that the station might be located a little closer to them or have a little more power? Now all we can do in line with that situation is just accept the fact that the C.B.C. in its wisdom and with the advice of its engineers is going to do the best possible chore. It seems to me that the establishment of any of these stations needs to call upon a fairly informed, let us say, public reaction in the area. I am just wondering how that can be done under the present set-up without hearings.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know how it can be done without hearings. There will be hearings in future under the bill. At the present time I think registered notices go out, and so on. You will see in section 11, which we

Broadcasting
just passed, provision that every meeting of the board shall be advertised in the Canada Gazette and giving the reason therefor. I certainly realize that the Canada Gazette is not the most widely published journal in Canada, but at least it is usually read by newspaper editors and people generally who are interested in public matters. Certainly if a notice appears in the Canada Gazette I would assume that all local and weekly papers in the area concerned will make very plain that this hearing is going to take place, and give notice of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has called our attention to subsection 4, which provides as follows:
(4) No recommendation to issue a licence shall be made unless, in the opinion of the board, it would be consistent with the purposes of this part and in the public interest to do so.
I should like to ask who can appear at a hearing of the board in order to protect or advance the public interest in respect of this matter. Under section 3 only licensees, as I understand this section, can appear at a public hearing. Licensees are the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or private stations. Under that section there is no provision for anyone else appearing at a hearing of the board except licensees. Therefore if some association-the radio broadcasting league or some organization of that kind-wished to make sure that its concept of the public interest was voiced at a hearing of the board, how could it be sure under this section?


George Clyde Nowlan: There is more than one licensee. You have applicants, whoever they may be, for licences. You have existing licensees. It is not limited to the corporation; it is all existing licensees across Canada and the corporation, which is the C.B.C. This is a public hearing. It will have to be advertised in the Canada Gazette.
Frankly I am not sure, but I think there is another section somewhere in which provision is made for the public to be present. Certainly if any decision has to be made in the light of the public interest I think it would follow automatically that a board of this nature conducting such an inquiry would give ample opportunity to be heard to the radio leagues, boards of trade, town councils and everything of that nature. That is why we inserted the clause "in the Canada Gazette". Naturally licensees and the C.B.C. could be notified by registered letter, but we wanted to have it on a broader basis than that in order to meet the very point raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true; but under the old act while there was no provision, as I

remember it, made for the public to be represented at a hearing in the way you have suggested, there was also under the old act no limitation on those who could appear at public hearings. If I read this section aright, however, such a limitation has been definitely included, because under this section the hearing will be limited to the corporation and other interested licensees. But section 2 defines "licensee" as meaning only "a person licensed under the Radio Act to establish a broadcasting station". No matter how many licensees there are there is no provision for any others than licensees appearing; therefore there is a limitation on the right of the public interested to be represented before the board, a limitation which was not included in the old broadcasting act.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not before me the similar section in the old act, but I can find it. I think the answer to the thought expressed by the Leader of the Opposition is contained in the first clause:
(3) No recommendation shall be made by the board on any matter referred to it under subsection (1) unless it has held a public hearing-
I direct attention to the words "a public hearing". I think it would follow as a matter of law, and it certainly would follow as a matter of practice and common sense, that a public hearing would not be limited to just one, two, three or four parties. Certainly it is the intention, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying this, to include any interested party, and that is the whole basis of it. Perhaps if we had 500 crackpots or something like that, coming in to stall for a month of two, the board naturally would have to use a little reason, but any responsible organization or individuals will be given full opportunity to appear at a hearing of the board before any licence is granted.


Lionel Chevrier: This section is one which falls to the determination of the Minister of Transport. It authorizes the issue of licences under the conditions set out in the section. I am concerned at the moment about two matters. I wonder whether the minister would not give them consideration, or tell me whether they are covered by this section. The first is the assurance that in granting these licences, either for broadcasting or for television, there be a Canadian content in the program. I am sure that is a matter that will commend itself favourably to the minister, but in view of the discussions that took place during consideration of the resolution and prior thereto I think there should be no hesitation in giving the house the assurance that, in so far as licences are concerned, either those which will be granted or those

that have already been granted, the programs shall have a certain Canadian content.
The other point I want to bring to the attention of the minister is that which has to do with association by new stations with networks outside of Canada. The tendency might well be, as I have put it in the house on more than one occasion, for a station that is not operating profitably or for a station that wants to operate more profitably to enter into an agreement with a network outside of Canada whereby it can pipe into this country canned programs which would be deterimental to the culture of our country. I have in mind now particularly stations in the province of Quebec where, because of the particular culture of the people, it would be easy for a station that was not being operated profitably to bring in canned programs from the United States or elsewhere, for that matter, which would have a content which would be detrimental to the tradition and culture of that province.
I am sure the minister would be the last person who would want to see a condition such as that exist, so I summarize what I have to say with reference to these points by asking him if it would not be possible in the granting of licences to add a condition which would provide, first for the assurance of Canadian content in the program, and next for the assurance that no station or network other than the C.B.C. might associate itself with a station outside Canada except in certain circumstances, for instance where a single program is the national interest.


George Clyde Nowlan: As far as Canadian content is concerned, the board is given power to deal with the Canadian content of any program, and in clause 10 it is also laid down that the whole object and purpose of the board is to establish a service of high quality which is basically Canadian in content and character. Under the provisions of clauses to which we shall come in a minute or two the board has such power to control the establishment of networks as might be necessary as far as the Canadian content of programs is concerned.
I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman meant by "having programs piped in", but as he knows there are many stations, not only in Quebec, which carry, shall we say, canned programs of recordings having a minimum Canadian content. I hope this situation can be improved as time goes on. But whether they are recordings or whether they come in by wire, I am sure the hon. gentleman believes, as I do, that the Canadian content should be increased and that we should not allow such things as he has described to happen.
Broadcasting


Lionel Chevrier: What is the situation now with reference to the Canadian content so far as the C.B.C. is concerned?


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could address that question to me when the officials are here, or when my estimates are before the committee. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is already familiar with this, but the study made by the Fowler commission a year ago shows that the amount of Canadian content is basically unsatisfactory in many situations where many dollars have been made. Sometimes it is in reverse proportion, the more dollars the less the Canadian program content.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister given any consideration to making either of these two matters which I have brought up a condition precedent to the granting of a licence?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I have not, except that the board has that power, of course, and I have no doubt that the board will exercise it. Again, this is a matter which I think we will have to leave for the board to decide in its judgment.


George James McIlraith: There is one thing I should like to add to the minister's answer with regard to the C.B.C. When applications for new licences are considered the board are quite firm about the content of the program; they examine programming very carefully, and they are very strict about the Canadian content.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is difficult to police it.


George James McIlraith: They are very thorough, though, concerning new applications. I am not able to say what happens after the stations are in existence, with regard to the content of programs then, but the question is dealt with specifically and firmly when application is made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The many provisions which have been included on the subject of licences might have indicated what the government thought about the problem which would be facing the board of governors in connection with the establishment of television stations in the richer markets. This will raise many difficulties. I wonder-and here I admit I am fishing for information-why it was not thought fit to put in something more definite as to who should get a licence for a station say in the Toronto area. It seems to me that without any clear instructions the board of broadcast governors is going to be in the devil's own position in determining who should get it. Maybe that is as it should be, and maybe the board is so constituted that it can handle

Broadcasting
this problem, but I should like the minister's views because this is one of the crucial questions dealt with by the bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member said he was on a fishing expedition, but I think the fishing season in Ontario has closed. The procedure is laid down here, but again I think the hon. member and I are at cross purposes to some extent, because he referred before to instructions to the board with respect to regulations and now he has mentioned instructions with respect to the granting of these licences. Certainly the last thing I should want to do would be to take any responsibility with respect to the granting of these licences in any circumstances. That is a matter which will be determined by the board in accordance with the machinery laid down here, and decisions will have to be made by the board in accordance with what they consider to be the public interest.
Here I hope the hon. member is not unwittingly confusing two things. Certain areas are restricted. That has nothing to do with the C.B.C. at all; that is a matter of policy which was decided by the previous government and which has been unchanged by this government. If any change should be made there will be an announcement to that effect.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That announcement would be made by the government?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said he would be the last person who would want to have anything to do with the granting of licences. Of course under this legislation he will not have as much to do with it as the Minister of Transport-


George Clyde Nowlan: I will not have anything to do with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But if I read the subclause right, it leaves the final approval to the governor in council, of which the hon. gentleman is a distinguished member. In other words the final decision as to the granting of licences rests with the government. That is quite in accord with the recommendation of the Fowler commission, and I have no criticism to make of that.
However, my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo, who is detained elsewhere by a meeting I should like to say something about if the rules of the committee permitted it, did raise a question which I think is rather important. We all know that under the present law-and, I assume from my reading of clause 12, under this bill-it is competent for the governor in council to reject a recommendation of the board of broadcast governors. The question the hon. member for 
Burin-Burgeo asked me to raise is one which the minister may perhaps be inclined to dismiss as academic, but I am not sure that it is academic; I am not sure there is not a loophole here which should be filled in. Let us assume that a licence has been applied for and that the board has considered the application and recommended against it. Could the governor in council, under this legislation, grant that licence if it wished?


George Clyde Nowlan: No. My understanding is that the governor in council could not grant a licence unless there was a recommendation by the board. I think that is the practice, and I think that is what was done under the previous board, with one exception of which the former minister is probably aware.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could remind me of the exception, because I confess I do not recall it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Possibly the hon. gentleman was away in Newfoundland at that time. It was in connection with one licence which was granted, I understand, against the recommendation of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the minister is quite satisfied that this would not be legally possible? I am not saying that the governor in council would be likely to do it, and I did not know that such a thing had ever happened. But if it could happen we should surely guard against it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the machinery is well established that the licence is granted on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors. I do not think it necessarily follows that the governor in council is obliged to accept that recommendation. He might exercise a veto and say, "Go back and make another recommendation".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not questioning that at all. What the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was concerned about was this. These licences are applied for through the Department of Transport. Presumably they go from there to the board of broadcast governors and back to the department. I imagine the Minister of Transport does not bring them to the governor in council at all if the board does not recommend them, but 1 am still not quite convinced from reading the clause that it would not be competent for the Minister of Transport to bring them to the governor in council and for the governor in councii to approve them if it saw fit to do so. I would think that would be an undesirable possibility to leave in the statute.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 13-Affiliation with C.B.C. network at time of issue of licence.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the minister said in regard to the issue of a licence that he did not like the idea of laying down conditions precedent in a bill. I am not quarrelling with that, but I notice that in subclause 1 of clause 13 the board may recommend that a licence be issued subject to the condition that the licensee shall operate the broadcasting station to which the licence relates as part of a network operated by the corporation. I am not objecting to that condition, but somewhere in this bill I would like to see-and I have raised this question before, as have other hon. members on this side of the house -a condition of that kind in reverse; in other words, that there be a similar condition either in this paragraph or some other place in the bill which would be to the effect that the licensee shall not operate a broadcasting station to which the licence relates as part of a network operated outside Canada. If we can lay down a condition to the effect that it must operate as part of a network in Canada, surely as a means of protection we can lay down a similar condition that a licence shall not be granted except on condition that the broadcasting station will not be operated as part of a network owned outside Canada. Does the minister not agree that it would be desirable somewhere in this bill to state that it would include this condition precedent, just as we now have the one contained in this clause?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think that is desirable, but I believe it is covered by the bill. I do not like to be leapfrogging ahead but clause 14, though it does not specifically say it must be in Canada, specifically spells out the fact that a licence can be granted for a network or a station only to a person who is a Canadian citizen.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Applicant to be Canadian citizen, etc.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, when I first read paragraph (b) of this clause I thought there must have been a printer's error.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it looks that way at first glance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It now reads:
(b) a person lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence who, since being so admitted, has been ordinarily resident in Canada for a period of not more than six years.
If that person, not a Canadian, resides in this country for five years, or even four, three, two years or one year, he qualifies
Broadcasting
for the issue of a licence; but if that foreigner in this country resides here for longer than six years he will not qualify. Is that not the situation?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Chairman. With respect, I believe the Leader of the Opposition has misconstrued it. The applicant has to be a Canadian citizen. I admit that when I first saw this clause I thought it was a typographical error, but this is an indirect approach without spelling something out. That is what it amounts to, to be perfectly frank. I believe the former minister of citizenship and immigration knows exactly what is involved in this. The paragraph reads:
(b) a person lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence who, since being so admitted, has been ordinarily resident in Canada for a period of not more than six years.
In other words he has to be here six years but not one, two or three years as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. The theory of that is this. Under the law a person lawfully admitted can become a Canadian citizen. He has to be a resident of Canada lawfully admitted for five years; the former minister of citizenship and immigration can correct me if I am wrong. Then he may become a Canadian citizen. We have added one more year and said, "If you are here six years and have not become a Canadian citizen, you do not deserve a licence. You should take out your citizenship." That is why the indirect language is used. It is to prevent people from getting licences who have been residing in Canada long enough to become naturalized Canadians, and we give them one year in addition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand that now, Mr. Chairman, but surely it still means what I said it means, that an American here for one year can qualify for a licence, but if he has been here for six years and has not become a Canadian citizen he does not qualify. This means however, that a foreign licensee or corporation operating a station in Canada could continue the foreign operation of that station by changing its owner every five years.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not wish to argue about the legal interpretation. I am quite certain the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, and certainly if he is right the lawyers are not. From the language of the clause which I have already read into the record I think the intention is that they cannot grant a licence to someone who has been here for only a year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would appear to me that once a person is lawfully admitted for permanent residence-that is to say as an immigrant, not a visitor to this country-under

Broadcasting
this provision he could apply for a licence. The board could do what it pleased about his application, but it would be perfectly proper for the board to grant it up to the sixth anniversary of his landing or the sixth anniversary of the time he became ordinarily resident, which is not always quite the same thing. When I read this I wondered if it were directed specifically against Mr. Hal Banks, but I might be wrong about that.
I can see why it has been put in. I suppose it would be somewhat unreasonable to say that a British immigrant who had been here for four years could not get a licence because he had not been here for five years, or that a United States citizen who had been here four years and who had every intention of becoming a Canadian citizen as soon as our laws allowed him to do so could not go into the broadcasting business. I do not know that I would disagree with that.
I believe this is a new provision. I believe the Canadian broadcasting legislation provides that a licensee must be a British subject or a Canadian citizen. What troubles me about this is that once having got the licence, could you keep it if you went on after the six years without becoming a citizen. I mean, you may get the licence before you have been here six years, but if you do not take out your citizenship, can you keep it? It seems to me it is the keeping of the licence rather than the getting it that is the substantial thing and that would be more offensive to what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about. Under this bill you might have some way of getting a licence before you were here six years and of remaining a foreigner and continuing to hold the licence, because there is no specific provision for cancelling a licence.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no provision for automatic suspension or cancellation of a licence. Once a licence has been obtained proper steps would have to be taken to cancel it. It would have to go on if none were taken. It does not say it automatically lapses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the point, Mr. Chairman, and the minister is creating a discrimination here. If you get the licence just before the six years are up you can keep it indefinitely, whereas if you do not apply for it until after the six years you cannot get it. Perhaps the minister would allow me to give an illustration. Let us take two United States citizens who have both been in Canada for seven years. One applied for a licence just before he was here for six years, and he would go right on having it. The other, because he did not apply until he was here for seven years, could not get a licence at all. That does not seem to me to be fair and reasonable.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am intrigued. I was in error in answering the Leader of the Opposition. It is, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, possible to get out a licence in that interregnum. You cannot get it after six years, whereas you could previously. I think perhaps some attention should be paid to that point so there will be some provision preventing someone carrying on indefinitely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would it not be better if we merely returned to the provision which restricts the application to Canadian citizens? I have not the text before me.


George Clyde Nowlan: Have you the section there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we can let this stand, Mr. Chairman, because as the minister has pointed out it does seem to be anomalous.


George Clyde Nowlan: I suggest that we let it stand.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 14 be allowed to stand?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one more question. I have difficulty in understanding this, perhaps because of my lack of legal training. Subparagraph Cii) of paragraph (c) reads:
A corporation other than a corporation controlled directly or indirectly by citizens or subjects of a country other than Canada.
I am thinking of a company such as Famous Players Canadian Corporation, which owns what amounts to a controlling interest in one of our television stations. Would it be affected, as a matter of fact, by this as being itself a subsidiary of an American organization?


George Clyde Nowlan: The subparagraph says:
A corporation other than a corporation controlled directly or indirectly by citizens or subjects of a country other than Canada.
I would not want to make a specific decision on any named company, but that is the intention.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall clause 14 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 15-Board may order suspension of licence.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Subclause 3 of clause 15 grants the right to appeal against an order of the board on a question of law; but if a licence has been taken away or has been refused on a question of fact instead of on a question of law there is no appeal.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is so.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Oftentimes the reason for taking away a licence will not be on a question

of law but because the station has not been administered according to the rules laid down by the board. There is no appeal whatsoever in that case, even though the station owners may have spent $400,000 to $500,000 on the station. Everything would be lost, because the station owners will not have the right to appeal.


George Clyde Nowlan: This does not cover cancellations; it covers suspensions, as the hon. member says. It would have to be a drastic violation, or a flagrant violation of the rules and regulations, and then it has to be referred to the Minister of Transport. They have to wait 10 days to give him time to enter an appeal. Of course, also, the board is given power, if it wants to, to do things on certain terms and conditions and it could, if it saw fit, order the suspension on certain terms and conditions; therefore I think the licencee is protected. I think this is taken from the other act almost verbatim. It is a subparagraph which I do not think was ever exercised. It is a good one to have in the act to assure some compliance with the regulations which will be laid down.


George James McIlraith: It is similar to the right of appeal given to the pipe-line companies.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it is comparable.


Leon David Crestohl: I agree that it is a very wise provision to give a party the right to appeal when the licence is cancelled. Is there also the right of appeal from a decision of the board when it refuses to grant a licence?


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Leon David Crestohl: I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that such right of appeal should exist. I do not think that right of appeal should be denied to anyone who has complied with all the regulations and formalities and requests the issuance of a licence. If the board refuses the licence the applicant should have the right that is given to everyone under normal circumstances and by the rule of law to seek redress from the courts, to have his day in court, because I do not think any board could possibly be considered as a board of final jurisdiction.


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot agree with the hon. member on that. There are scores of boards of this nature where appeals are not allowed, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The legislation has been in effect throughout the years. An applicant appeals to the board and the board exercises discretion, in its wisdom. It refuses the licence, and there has been no appeal to the courts from
Broadcasting
that decision. The hon. member would undermine the whole basis of the independence of the board if appeals to the courts were allowed in each case.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat at sea with respect to this section, because when I look at section 18 I find that it reads:
Every person who violates any of the provisions of this part or the regulations is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction as provided in the Criminal Code.
It seems to me that anyone who has his licence suspended must have violated the regulations. I just wonder how you equate the two things. It does seem to me that anyone who breaks the regulations is liable to have his licence suspended and also to conviction under the Criminal Code. I bring up this point because I notice that the Fowler commission in the draft act put these two items very close together in their suggested sections 27 and 28, and they specify the fine. Can the minister clear up my turmoil in this regard?


George Clyde Nowlan: The Fowler commission also points out in the report that it would probably be impossible to get a conviction. I think that is true. Let us take, for instance, the standard of programs. How are you going to convict someone for failing to maintain a standard? I think any lawyer in the house would welcome the opportunity of defending rather than prosecuting, but there might be some violations which could be prosecuted in the courts. This is a relatively simple provision that is included in most acts. It is simply a summary conviction. In other words, you cannot prosecute by indictment.
These are the two regulatory or enforcing provisions in the whole of this bill. One deals with suspension. As I said, it would only be used in the most flagrant case. The second deals with the right to prosecute, under which the prosecuting counsel would have the court deal with the advertising content or what regulation it was. How are you going to measure it? It is a good thing to have in there. It has a salutary effect. Frankly, that is the purpose of it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Subclause 3 of clause 15 brings a question to my mind. A while ago the minister said it would have to be a very serious infringement of the regulations that would bring about the suspension of a station's licence, but there is nothing in this section or in the legislation anywhere which states that. It is left to the board, and the board may, depending on how they look at it, be severe in some instances and less severe in others. Does the minister not think it would be a lot more democratic to permit an appeal on a question of fact so it could be proven

Broadcasting
in court whether the board was right in suspending the licence or whether it was wrong? The licensee would be satisfied if he had the right to appeal from the board to a court which could overrule the decision of the board.


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot accept that. I do not think this danger which the hon. member for Hull sees will arise. I go back to the fundamental statement I have made 50 times in this debate. If you have the right personnel you are not going to run into the difficulty which the hon. member envisages. If you have the wrong people the act fails anyway and there is nothing we can do.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister refers to having the right people or the wrong people and he may be right but these people may have different views on various matters. They might act severely against some people and less severely against others. There is no recourse whatsoever to protect the rights of these people.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Operation of station as part of a network.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Clause 16, as I understand it, gives the government a very good opportunity if they desire to take advantage of it, and I think that they agree with this in principle, to provide for the contingency I have mentioned two or three times, that a Canadian station may affiliate itself with a foreign broadcasting network. I put this point to the minister because I should like to get an opinion on it from him before I decide whether to move a formal amendment. The clause now reads:
(1) A licensee shall not operate a broadcasting station as part of a network unless-
I suggest to the minister that there might be a new condition which would be first in order and would read as follows: "A licensee shall not operate a broadcasting station as part of a network unless (a) it is a Canadian network."


George Clyde Nowlan: According to my understanding, under clause 14 there has got to be Canadian control in any event. I cannot see any objection to the suggestion made. On the other hand, I do not want to accept it at the moment because there may be peculiar circumstances. There may be times when Canadian stations are connected with foreign networks for the purpose of carrying service programs such as presidential addresses or election returns in Washington. There are scores of such programs where Canadian stations operate as part of such a network for a relatively short time, and an absolute

prohibition such as the Leader of the Opposition suggests might interfere with that. With the intention that the network should be Canadian, I would rather see the matter left to the judgment of the board for the moment and more consideration given to the technical problems which might arise if you had an absolute prohibition as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point, I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier but I think such an amendment would meet the two conditions to which I suggested the minister should give consideration, having to do with the granting of a licence for a broadcasting station or a television station. If this amendment were accepted by the minister it certainly would meet any difficulties I found myself in with respect to the point I raised earlier. Surely at first blush it would seem that there should be no objection to this condition because this is the clause under which a licensee shall not operate until and unless certain conditions obtain. Therefore I am going to press the minister respectfully to allow the clause to stand and give it consideration in the meantime.


George Clyde Nowlan: I want to get through with the bill some time. As the hon. member points out, a licensee shall not operate a broadcasting station as part of a network unless (aj it is a condition to the licence issued in respect of the station that he do so. In other words, he has to apply to the board of broadcast governors for permission to operate, shall we say, as part of a United States network. That procedure has to be followed, everybody has to be notified and the machinery gone through to which I referred a few moments ago. I cannot believe that the board will be granting licences of that nature, certainly not in the immediate future. What conditions may be as to affiliations and networks in this rapidly changing industry I do not know. As I have said, we do have temporary networks. I think the clause should be allowed to stand as it is. It is pretty specific and certainly more definite than the old act. Undoubtedly it was covered to some extent in the old act but it was not spelled out as directly as it is here. You just cannot get permission at all to join such a network unless that condition is specifically endorsed on the licence that you have the right to do so and so. I should think it would be very difficult to obtain endorsement of such a condition.
As I have said, this is a technical field and I do not feel free to make commitments, although I agree entirely in principle and I feel sure that the principle will be maintained in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless I do not want to agree to something which in the end

might prove embarrassing and difficult to administer and perhaps might reflect on the conditions here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate what the minister has said and I am not pressing him-


George Clyde Nowlan: Bring it up in January before the committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -to amend the bill in a hasty way which might have results that we do not contemplate.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am also pleased to hear him say that this kind of condition would in fact be attached by the board to the issuing of a licence and that the board would have no intention of issuing licences to stations which would operate as part of a United States network, which is something different from being associated with such a network for a particular program.
In addition to ensuring that Canadian networks and stations remain Canadian, we also had in mind the protection of the board against the kind of pressure that might be exerted on it to sanction this kind of affiliation and if the words I have suggested were included in the bill they would be a protection for the board. However, I think the minister has stated the policy of the government very clearly in this regard. He has, I understand, said that this is a matter which should have consideration as one of primary importance by the committee when it is set up next session. In the light of this assurance by the minister, perhaps we can let the matter stand.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is why I am anxious to see the committee set up at the next session, so that we can deal with some of these things having had a little more experience than we have had now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Political programs.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This, of course, is the famous Mr. Sage clause that some of the older members of the committee will recall.


George James McIlraith: I am not so old and I
remember it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume it is in precisely the same form as it is in the present broadcasting act. I have not checked it word for word but I would not have thought that the minister would lay profane hands on it without telling us. It is, of course, a travesty in its present form. I am very familiar with the legal opinion that Mr. Dunton got from the Department of Justice about this matter. It did not satisfy me and
Broadcasting
I do not think it would satisfy anyone else who had any regard for the English language, but it was probably good law just the same. In its present form, apart altogether from the question in the minds of some of us whether or not "dramatized" is a verb at all, we do know that all kinds of practices go on at the present time that can only be described as dramatized performances.
One of my colleagues mentioned to me a moment ago that in one constituency in the last election a hockey game was paid for by a candidate not a member of this party and every so often the candidate appeared to put in a plug for himself. I do not know whether or not a hockey game is a dramatized performance but I would think it was certainly not the kind of political broadcasting contemplated when clause 17 was put into the present act. I am not going to suggest any amendment but I should like to have the assurance from the minister that clause 17 will be specifically remitted to the committee on privileges and elections for study during the next session.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was the understanding when we inserted it here rather reluctantly that this was not the place to include it but as this certainly was not the time to engage, as I said before, in a prolonged political discussion about advertising and programs it was put here, shall we say, as a temporary resting place until the elections committee could meet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister must have considered the fact that under the provisions of this clause he is putting the Prime Minister in danger of violating the law because the Prime Minister, on more than one occasion, has broadcast, in a highly dramatic form, programs, advertising and announcements of partisan political matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: That type of program would not be banned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Following the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to clause 17 (1) (a) which does not permit a dramatized form of political program, I may say that I have not much criticism of that because in my constituency they have mostly been tragedies.
I do want to refer for a moment to this paragraph (b) which says:
No licensee shall
(b) broadcast a program, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character on any day that an election is held for the election of a member of the House of Commons, the legislature of a province or the council of a municipal corporation, or on the two days immediately preceding any such day.

Broadcasting
I want to bring an incident to the attention of the minister and ask him if he does not think this clause requires amendment, and whether it might be one of the things to be studied by that committee which he suggested. In the last election political candidates would go across to the United States and give addresses over United States television stations which would be received in Canada and re-broadcast in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, by people who have licences to pipe in television or something of that sort. Would this clause not require amendment? The candidate or some person goes outside of Canada and uses United States television facilities, then that program is picked up in Canada by a Canadian who has made an arrangement with the corporation and has a licence from the board to broadcast piped-in television. How are we going to avoid that? It does not affect our party because I am told it costs about $100 a minute and about 15 minutes would exhaust our funds. Would the minister say whether or not he considers there should be some change?


George Clyde Nowlan: Obviously that is a violation of this clause. Obviously the clause should be repealed and a new one substituted therefor, after discussion with this committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not quite understand the wording of paragraph (b) and the wording in subclause (2). Paragraph (b) says:
No licensee shall
(b) broadcast a program, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character on any day that an election is held for the election of a member of the House of Commons, the legislature of a province or the council of a municipal corporation, or on the two days immediately preceding any such day.
Then, subclause (2) says:
A licensee shall immediately preceding and immediately after broadcasting a program, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character, identify the sponsor and the political party, if any, upon whose behalf the program, advertisement or announcement was broadcast.
If a station has not the right to broadcast such a program, why should they identify the sponsor?


George Clyde Nowlan: That means any program, whether it is one week or two weeks before election day. Then you have to say that this program is sponsored by such and such a party, and so forth. The clause is identical with the one that has been in the act for 15 years. However it works, it is there.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Even if it was there, it may be dangerous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister know how most of the municipal candidates describe themselves partywise in carrying out this provision of the act?


Alexis Pierre Caron: In Quebec we have school boards and they have been forgotten.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Report to parliament.
Hazen Robert Argue: This clause requires the board of broadcast governors to report within three months after the termination of each fiscal year to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the governor in council for the purpose. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports to the Minister of National Revenue.


George Clyde Nowlan: He happens to be the minister designated.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. There is a further provision in part II that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will report to the minister. It is possible that the board of broadcast governors will report to one minister and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will report to another. As has been stated a number of times in this debate, there is a good deal of misgiving that this very thing might happen and might tend to divide the Canadian broadcasting system into two parts, and that this is opposed to the one system concept of the people who have the public interest at heart.
We should like to see this section amended so it would specifically provide that the report should be made to the Minister of National Revenue. We do that because that is the minister to whom the C.B.C. has been reporting. We also do it because of the occupant of the portfolio at this time. We say that the Canadian people generally, while they may in various degrees question the government's attitude towards the national broadcasting system in this country, do have a good deal of faith in the present Minister of National Revenue. It has been said, in any public speculation as to the differences that might have existed within the Conservative party at one time on this issue, that the Minister of National Revenue could usually be counted upon to champion the cause of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a national broadcasting system. It could be argued, of course, that the present minister will not always occupy that portfolio. If there is a cabinet post in the government that is considered more important, more of a plum, we would wish him well as he goes up the ladder.

However, we are willing that the board of broadcast governors should report to him, and in view of the long history of the C.B.C. reporting to the Minister of National Revenue we feel that should be made an operating part of this measure. If these suggestions were adopted we would then endeavour to have part II designate that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall also report to the same minister. Our group believes that this clause should be amended in order that the report might be made to the Minister of National Revenue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for As-siniboia. I have some hesitation in supporting an amendment which would change a bill because of, shall I say, personal considerations for the occupant of a particular post in the government. If we were to carry this too far we would perhaps cause the minister to lose his job. I do suggest it is a bad principle to change legislation for these considerations.
However, we have other objections to this clause, Mr. Chairman, which perhaps I should mention. This clause 19 fails to require the board to report on broadcasting in general and on the performance of the component parts of the broadcasting system in particular. It merely requires the board to report on its activities. If this particular clause remains as it is at present all that the board will be required to do under it is to make an arithmetical recital of its activities, the number of meetings, what was dealt with, and that kind of thing.
On the other hand, under section 36 of the bill the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to report on its operations. That introduces a distinction of the kind we are so worried about, namely a distinction between the privately owned and publicly owned parts of the system. Therefore, in order to avoid that distinction we think that this section should be amended. Earlier I had thought that perhaps this amendment could be introduced to section 11 having to do with regulations but perhaps this is the best place to do it, namely section 19 which deals with reports to parliament. I should therefore like to move:
That section 19 be amended as follow:
By deleting the words: "on the activities of the board under this part for that fiscal year", and substituting: "under this part for that fiscal year on the performance and financial affairs of privately and publicly owned stations and networks.
I think this amendment would improve the bill. It would ensure that parliament each year would get a report from this board, not merely on its activities but on the operations of broadcasting in Canada, both on the part of public and private stations. It would be a
Broadcasting
far better basis for consideration by any parliamentary committee than would the kind of report which seems to be visualized in section 19. I would commend this change at least to the sympathetic consideration of the minister.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I could not accept this amendment in the words in which it is moved. A report under this part for that fiscal year on the performance of privately and publicly owned stations and networks is something to which one might give very careful consideration. But the amendment also requires a report on the financial affairs of privately owned and publicly owned stations and networks. Of course the financial affairs of publicly owned stations and networks are public property anyway, I presume; that is the corporation and its affairs are controlled by this parliament. But I do not know how far you can spell out, to use a slang expression, the financial affairs of a privately owned station. You will recall that Mr. Fowler in his report said that there should be but very sketchy information given by the board on the financial affairs of privately owned stations; that they should collect it and perhaps use it for purposes of program evaluation and so on but that nothing more than a balance sheet, I think he suggested, should be published, if that, so that rival stations and competitors would not be given access to the private affairs of the private stations. Certainly I do not think the committee would want to accept this amendment in the way in which it is worded.
As to the word "activities", I suppose there will be a report at the end of this fiscal year for part of it; if the board gets operating this fall, it will have to submit a report next spring. If there is some objection to that word "activities" or if there is some significance to it or something else is thought better, I am prepared to consider it. But I cannot consider the wording of the amendment as it is before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would it meet the minister's objection to the wording if I made this suggestion? I appreciated his objection. Suppose the word "operations" be substituted for "performance and financial affairs" so that the amendment would read "a report under this part for that fiscal year on the operations of privately and publicly owned stations and networks". I am sure the minister will appreciate that there is a report. The C.B.C. has to report on its operations under this bill. The board has only to report on its activities. The House of Commons, when it is considering broadcasting matters, whether in committee or in the house, will have before it as the basis for that consideration a report

Broadcasting
which will be required on the operations of the publicly owned system but no report on the operations of the private element of the broadcasting system. I appreciate what the minister has said about the inadvisability of those particular words. I am asking him whether this amendment would meet the situation:
A report under this part for that fiscal year on the operations of privately and publicly owned stations and networks.
Would that meet the point raised by the minister?


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the minister replies, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is a very good one. I am talking about the general purport of the amendment. I think what has been said is completely true, namely that the board of broadcast governors should be asked to report on the whole broadcasting system of this government and all aspects of it and should not be confined to a report if its own activities. I have no quarrel at rll with the word "activities". However, I think the type of report which the board is to make should be clear. I think it would be a mistake to make it possible for the board to overlook completely, if it wished to do so, in reporting on its activities the question of the privately owned as well as the publicly owned stations and networks.
I might say to the Leader of the Opposition that before he suggested his own subamendment to the amendment I had already written into the copy that I have the same word "operations" but I had deleted a little bit less from his amendment than had the Leader of the Opposition. I had deleted only the words "financial affairs" so that it would read:
And substituting: "a report under this part for that fiscal year on the performance and operations of privately and publicly owned stations and networks.
I appreciate the very fair way in which the minister has considered this suggested amendment. With the further suggestion as to how the amendment that was moved might be further amended, the minister might consider the question whether he himself could amend this section or accept an amendment which would spell out the type of broad general report that parliament would like to see the board of governors make on an annual basis.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George James McIlraith: It seems to me that we probably are to get a report on the activities of the board which is very limited or very

narrow. But what we really want is something much larger. Do we not want a report on broadcasting in Canada? Is that not the thing we are seeking to get at? I wonder whether the minister would consider another suggestion, keeping in "the activities of the board" and inserting after that "and broadcasting in Canada" or some similar phraseology that would get us the fuller report on the whole subject of broadcasting which seems to be what everybody desires.


George Clyde Nowlan: One other difficulty about this matter, in addition to the financial one, is the fact that by this amendment, if it were adopted, we are telling the board of broadcast governors just what it is to do. In other words, we are defining the regulations for them and saying "you must do so and so" under the regulations in order that you may report to parliament. Personally, I feel that the report of the board of governors should be along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West, a report on its activities in such detail as parliament might require to make sure that it is performing its duties, spending its money wisely and so on and so forth. Certainly I think there should be included in it a general statement on broadcasting in Canada, on the stations and so on. I do not know what the machinery of this board is going to be, and I do not know how long it is going to take to set this board up. I do not want to insert into this an instruction that the board should report, say, on April 15 when, obviously, the board may not have had time to receive reports on the operations of radio and telecasting stations across Canada.
I suggest that this is a matter which is worthy of careful consideration, and I think it could be left to the committee on radio this winter, when we shall have the regulations before us, to consider whether these regulations are wide enough and to ensure that we do get an adequate report on broadcasting in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just want to comment on what the minister has said. He said he had some difficulty in including in this bill a provision whereby the board would be required to report on its operations. What we are trying to insure in this and in other parts of the bill is that the corporation should not be placed at a disadvantage before this board. The minister has agreed it would be unfortunate if the corporation has to produce this kind of report to parliament while the private broadcasting stations have to make no such report to anybody.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that correct? After all, the corporation is a crown corporation. We have

to provide the money for it. Its whole financial affairs are, so to speak, naked before us. That is not true of the private stations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate that, and the minister was quite right when a moment ago he took exception to the wording of this amendment because it might be interpreted as prying into the private affairs of private radio stations, which we have no right to do.
The minister has suggested once again that this is the kind of thing which could be considered in the committee on radio and perhaps, in the light of what he has said, we should be content with that. But I would point out this is the third or fourth time we have moved amendments and the minister has said: let us refer this to the committee. This confirms our feeling that had this bill been brought in a month ago all these things could have been discussed in committee and we should have had a much better bill in consequence.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, let us not disturb this atmosphere of peace and kindliness. The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that that statement is incorrect. The reason I am asking that this be referred to the committee is, of course, because the board has not been appointed and the regulations have not yet been drawn. If this bill had appeared six weeks ago the regulations would still not have been drafted. In other words, there is nothing that the committee could have done in connection with this bill except, possibly, to ask the minister: who are you going to appoint? That is about all that could have been done. Do not let us be under any misapprehension that this is due to the bill coming in late. It is due to the fact that under the ordinary processes of government, whether this had come down in January or August, action would not have been taken until the government and the ministers had had time to draw a deep breath and give the matter more consideration than is possible during a hectic session. Thus there is no substance in the suggestion which has been made that this could have been dealt with in a committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: To continue in an atmosphere of peace and kindliness, may I say that I still feel that if we had had this bill before us and considered it in a committee of this house it might have been returned as a much better bill than it is now. The minister has suggested that this can all be done next session. But by then we will have a new act before us, and the board of broadcast governors will just have been set up-there will not have been much time-and the committee will probably be confronted with just those difficulties which confront us at the present time.
Broadcasting
In so far as a comparison is concerned between the kind of consideration here in the house and consideration in a committee, the minister must realize that every time we now reach a clause here we are confronted with cries of "carried" as soon as we begin to discuss it. We are doing our best to point out what we consider to be weaknesses of the bill, as is our duty, even though we are not unduly pressing our viewpoint, because obviously that would not be desirable. However, in the spirit of peace and kindliness I am willing to withdraw my amendment, especially in view of the fact, that as the minister has pointed out the original wording was not very good.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the attitude of the minister that the substance of this amendment could be considered next session and that the amendment has a good deal of merit in it. However, at this time I wish to revert to the point I made when I first stood up to discuss clause 19. We do not like the possibility -indeed, I may say, the probability-that the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. will be reporting to separate ministers. We feel that this could lead to a great deal of conflict. We feel it could lead to a minimizing of the effectiveness of the operations of the C.B.C. We have confidence in the attitude of the Minister of National Revenue, and this group has confidence as far as the national system of broadcasting is concerned, but this confidence does not extend to certain other ministers of the government particularly in the light of their clear history in this house. For that reason, and also because although the minister was very generous in his attitude to other suggestions he did not seem to show the same leniency toward this amendment -perhaps he is just modest because he is named in it-I should like to move:
That clause 19 be amended by deleting the words "member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purpose" and by substituting therefor the following words "The Minister of National Revenue".


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are not able to support this amendment for several reasons. Perhaps, having served in governments, we have not the same faith in political immortality as the hon. member for Assiniboia seems to have. That would be one reason. The second reason is that we do not think the purpose which the hon. member has in mind will be served by this amendment, although I have no doubt he is thinking of moving a similar amendment later on when he comes to the C.B.C.
The position we take is that there should be no minister to whom the C.B.C. reports;

Broadcasting
that the C.B.C. should, as the Fowler commission recommended, report to the board of broadcast governors and that the board of broadcast governors in turn should report to the government, analagously with the existing situation under the existing act. The principle in this legislation is wrong and we think it will be made even worse if the government is foolish enough to have two ministers. I do not think any more than the Leader of the Opposition does that it is wise. There is no connection between the duties of a minister of national revenue-not the minister but a minister of national revenue -and the particular responsibilities under this act. It is possible that the Prime Minister even before this act is proclaimed will recognize the undoubted merits of the present Minister of National Revenue and promote him to a more responsible sphere and if for example we were to find in his place the Minister of Finance, then where would the hon. member for Assiniboia have taken us?
I would rather leave this as it is and trust to the good sense and the good judgment and perhaps even a bit to the fear of ridicule of the Prime Minister in this matter. But as for the question of this resolving any conflict between the two ministers, we do not think it would have that effect. In the circumstances we do not believe it is a good amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should say a word or two at this time so that if a vote is taken my colleagues will not feel they are hurting my feelings by voting against the amendment. I appreciate all the kindly things that have been said and I accept them. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out a few moments ago, there is no relationship between the C.B.C. as such or the board of broadcast governors and the Minister of National Revenue, and whatever the future of the present Minister of National Revenue may be-whether he attains a more exalted status or whatever may happen-the fact is that one should not definitely commit the administration of the C.B.C. to a specific minister.
Reference was made to continuity over a long period of time. Dr. McCann was the minister reporting for the Department of National Revenue-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Previously he was the minister of national war services.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. I believe it is much better to permit the flexibility which is now provided for and enable the governor in council to nominate a minister to administer the board of broadcast governors. That minister may be the Minister of National

Revenue or he may be the Minister of Finance. Of course, it may even be the Minister of Public Works; who knows?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate spoke about our perhaps feeling that there may be political immortality when we are asking that a particular minister be named. Then he went on to say that if we named the Minister of National Revenue, we might be horrified at a later date to find that the Prime Minister had switched ministers and the new Minister of National Revenue could be the present Minister of Finance. That would be a development that would give us great cause for reconsidering the moving of this amendment. But our fear is that without it being stated in this clause it just might be the Minister of Finance and that fear has been bolstered by the words of the Minister of National Revenue who said there is one of three possibilities-


George Clyde Nowlan: One of two; I was just giving an illustration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now it is getting worse. We want to see the clause amended so that possibility would not exist. I believe it is not a wise thing to have this board reporting to an unnamed minister of the crown, a minister who can be changed from time to time. I believe it is far more in keeping with having a board of governors doing an effective job to have stated in the legislation the minister to whom the board will report. The looseness and ambiguity of this bill of which the official opposition has made so much for so long a period is going to be supported by them in voting against this amendment because they will in effect be asking that this free wheeling rein be given to the government.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate also took it upon himself to put words in my mouth by saying that no doubt we had in mind a certain amendment to part II. The hon. member is a very congenial fellow. He is a very good and valuable member of the House of Commons and, if I may say so, I believe he is improving. However, by engaging in the type of forecasting that has preoccupied him this afternoon his conduct leads one to wonder whether he may not be reverting to the status he enjoyed some time before he began to show the improvement to which I referred. Even if the hon. member is a lawyer I could prove to him, as I could prove to any one who is a lawyer, from the evidence I have on my desk that it is not the intention of this group to move the amendment he suggested.

We believe it is in keeping with the building of a national system of broadcasting to have a specific minister named in this clause, to move an appropriate amendment to a further clause in the bill and to make it abundantly clear if these amendments are carried that parliament wants a single national system with certain components rather than a dual system such as could flow from this bill providing as it now does for these two bodies to report to separate ministers.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 131.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there is another point about which I wish to ask the minister. He will observe that in part II of the bill the word "minister" is defined in clause 21, paragraph (d) as follows:
(d) "minister" means the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is designated by the governor in council as the minister through whom the corporation is to be accountable to parliament for the conduct of its affairs.
There is no definition of the word "minister" in the definition clause in part I of the bill but there is a limited or partial definition of the word in clause 19 in part I which says:
19. The board shall, within three months after the termination of each fiscal year, submit to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the governor in council for the purpose a report on the activities of the board under this part for that fiscal year.
That is the operative part of the clause.
The reference to a minister is found in the words:
-submit to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the governor in council for the purpose-
Presumably, the purpose is receiving the report on its activities. The significance of that, as I read it, and the way in which it is drafted, is that the minister can only be designated under the act for the purpose of receiving the report. He cannot be designated for any other purposes and if I am right in that it leads us to the position that there is no minister answerable in the house for the activities of the board, and no minister to whom we can direct questions, and who will otherwise be responsible in the house for the activities of the board. I am sure that was not intended. Perhaps there is an answer to it, and I would like the minister to give me the answer if he can.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure but what that is not virtually the answer to it, Mr. Chairman. It is roughly or approximately the
Broadcasting
same situation as applies now to the minister for the C.B.C. I am the minister designated under the act for the purpose of the C.B.C. and I have two functions at the moment: one, to recommend payments over $25,000; and, two, to report to parliament for the C.B.C. I have forgotten all the detailed discussion that went into the drafting of this, as my hon. friend will appreciate. Perhaps I should have used it yesterday in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. This goes a long way to meet the charge that the board of broadcast governors is under the control of the government, or something of that kind. This section was phrased very carefully to avoid such a suggestion. They report to the minister but the board is pretty well- in fact, I would say I hope entirely-divorced and removed from control. It has to report to parliament and parliament, I suppose, can exercise control, I do not know; parliament can take such action as it sees fit. That is the way the thing is defined in the act.


George James McIlraith: My point is this. Under the C.B.C. part of the bill the minister is the minister through whom the corporation is accountable to parliament. In the first part of the bill the minister is not defined at all other than as contained in section 19. He may merely be designated for the day to receive the report and turn it over to parliament. There is no minister accountable to parliament so far as I know. Under all other legislation, through one method or another, there is a minister accountable to parliament and to whom parliament may look for information and the like from day to day. It is this point which concerns me. It seems to me there is an omission there. The minister should be accountable to parliament and he is not accountable. There must be someone to whom parliament can direct inquiries. There must be someone, for instance, who will present the estimates to obtain the money to sustain the board of broadcast governors.


George Clyde Nowlan: That follows automatically in section 20 which says:
All expenditures for the purposes of this part shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.
There has to be someone-


George James McIlraith: That is just my point; someone has to do it, but there is no minister responsible. Therefore, when we have supplementary estimates pertaining to this board of broadcast governors we have no minister to whom we may direct questions. There is no minister answerable to parliament. That is the point. I wonder whether the minister would give some attention to that point. I appreciate his remarks about the other aspect

Broadcasting
of it, namely independence from direction by a minister, but that does not answer the part as to the responsibility to parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
On clause 21-Definitions. "Broadcasting".
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there is a feeling among some of us that there would be advantages to having the C.B.C. report to the board of broadcast governors. So that there will be no question at all about the control that the board of broadcast governors should have over broadcasting and to clear up certain divisiveness in the way in which it is set up, I should like to move:
That clause 21 be amended by deleting the present subparagraph (d) thereof and by substituting therefor a new subparagraph (d) to read as follows: "Board of broadcast governors means the board of broadcast governors as set forth in part I of this act and is the board to which the C.B.C. shall report."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have no
objection to this amendment; in fact, I approve of it. But would it not be desirable to let any change in the definitions part of this bill be held until we see what is going to happen to clause 22, because the definitions will surely depend on whether any amendment is to be made to the substantive clauses. While we may propose amendments to clause 22, surely it would be unwise to change the definitions until we see whether there are amendments to the bill. I suggest the definition amendments be held over until we see what happens to clause 22.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister agree to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that we let clause 21, the interpretation clause, stand and go on with the other clauses because some of us have some suggestions to make on the other clauses, and while they probably will not be acceptable to the minister, they might be. If he is agreeable and if the hon. member for Port Arthur will be agreeable to allowing his amendment to stand until we dispose of the substantive clauses we could come back to the interpretation clause.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will we get through by five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It might help in getting it through more quickly.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is perfectly satisfactory.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it agreeable to let the amendment stand?


Hazen Robert Argue: My colleague has no objection to this clause standing, apart from the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. He

may have a point. The only thing we had in mind was that clause 21 comes before clause 22, and if you let clause 21 go by, which is the definition clause you will really get into a flap in the committee when you wish to look at it afterwards. I think this is probably the best way to proceed, namely let this clause stand and deal with the other one. After we have been successful with clause 22 we can come back to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee to let clause 21 stand?
Clause 21 stands.
On clause 22-Corporation established.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause of the bill to which we are most definitely opposed and which gives us the greatest anxiety. It establishes, or re-establishes, perhaps, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a form which we consider unwise. We have some objection to take to the details of the various subclauses, but our main objection- and the minister will not be surprised to hear this

is that the corporation should be set up in this way with a board of directors comparable in nature and composition to the board of broadcast governors. We also object-and this objection has been voiced before-to the corporation reporting separately to the minister and through the minister to parliament rather than through the board of broadcast governors.
The first amendment we would move to this clause would be to subclause 1 which now reads:
There shall be a corporation to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation consisting of a president, a vice-president and nine other directors to be appointed by the governor in council.
Incidentally, the president and vice-president are appointed in a different way and for a different period of time than the other directors. We are opposing this kind of board of directors for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We do not think there should be this kind of board along with the board of broadcast governors. That is our basic objection. If it is not accepted as embodied in the amendment which we will move, we will have other objections to raise and perhaps other amendments to move to other subsections of this clause. But in connection with this basic objection, I am going to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to move an amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That section 22, subsection 1, be amended to strike out all the words after the word "vicepresident" and substitute therefor the words "and

a secretary to be appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors."
Subsection 1 would then read:
There shall be a corporation to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation consisting of a president, a vice-president and a secretary to be appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors.
I might say in support of this amendment that it will bring the whole structure of the bill into conformity with the recommendations of the Fowler commission. The corporation will not be a corporation sole; the corporation will consist of three persons. I think it is desirable that it should consist of three persons. There seems to be no useful purpose in having these nine directors whose functions will be entirely redundant if the board of broadcast governors does the things that the Fowler commission recommended that it should do. If it does not do those things, we do not think there is any place for the board of broadcast governors, but the position we took on second reading, the position we took before the bill was ever introduced and the position we are still taking is that the structure recommended by the Fowler commission is not a sound structure for broadcasting in Canada and by this amendment we would be going a long way toward putting the bill back on the rails.


George Clyde Nowlan: I just want to say that the government cannot accept this amendment. It makes a fundamental change in the whole concept of the bill to which a great deal of time and consideration have been given. I know the arguments pro and con and I could repeat them ad infinitum. I have weighed them in my own mind for a good many weeks and in the end the government decided that this approach was the better approach in setting up the organization. You can say that it is redundant, you can say a lot of things, but it appealed to the government as the best way in which we could inaugurate this system, by only making a change in name and instead of the board of governors the C.B.C. has had given it a board of directors corresponding in other ways.
As to the argument that the directors should be removed and that the corporation should be reduced to a corporation sole or corporation three, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has just mentioned, I was thinking yesterday, as all these arguments were being used about political pressure and all the rest of it, how much greater the pressure would be if there were no board of directors and if it was simply a corporation consisting of three executive officers. As the bill stands,
Broadcasting
the president and the vice-president are members of the board of directors. They have their associates there and, to use an expression used yesterday, they are insulated as far as it is humanly possible to do so. At least it is a much better approach than if there were no insulation at all. That is why I wanted to see a board of directors set up, and I think it will work. I know the experience in Australia and I realize the difficulty expressed in the old cliches about one being stronger than the other, getting in each other's hair and so on. But after all this is Canada. We have solved our problems in the past. We have adopted unique approaches time and time again, very often involving compromises with those followed somewhere else. We have made them work and we will make this work. I at least want the committee to give us an opportunity to try it and see how it works. We can then change it if it should be necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the vote is taken I should like to point out to the minister that so far as his preoccupation with protecting the officers of the corporation from political pressure is concerned, a preoccupation which we share, surely the insulation he talks about and which he suggests would be removed if the nine other directors were abolished, would be supplied, and I would hope very effectively supplied, by the board of broadcast governors. I am not suggesting that the directors be removed and that the executive officers of the corporation be left defenceless in the face of political pressure. We would substitute the more effective insulation provided by the new board of broadcast governors for the kind of insulation they would get from this board.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 72.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clause 22 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, now that we have failed to secure a fundamental change in this section we are going to try to improve it in its present form. For that purpose I should like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that while the president and vice-president of the corporation are appointed for seven years the other directors are appointed for three years.
These other directors are appointed, as the minister knows, during good behaviour and that gives them some security against pressure. The president and vice-president, contrary to the position of the chairman of the board of the present corporation, are appointed to hold office during pleasure, whereas the directors are appointed to hold office during good behaviour. Under subclause 4 a director may be removed at any time by the

Broadcasting
governor general on address of the Senate and the House of Commons, and only in that way. The president and vice-president, holding office during pleasure, can be removed without that procedure being followed. We believe that this is a fundamental weakness of this particular clause and a danger to the corporation.
Without saying any more, because the minister knows our position on this, I should like to move:
That section 22, subsection (2) be amended by deletion of the words "during pleasure" and by substitution of the following, "during good behaviour".


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not want to take up much time, Mr. Chairman. I simply say again today what I said yesterday on second reading, that the government cannot accept that amendment. I recognize the arguments that have been made, but this procedure appears in other government corporations as well. It is done because these particular officers, as I said yesterday, are executive officers charged with the responsibility of doing executive work. I think it is only reasonable that if they should happen to fail in doing that executive work, if they should be inefficient or anything of that kind, then the president and vice-president could be removed. It is a contingency against which one should guard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has made the thing even worse than it appeared from the simple language of the clause. As I understand it, and I would be glad to be corrected if I am wrong because I have not looked at the statute on this particular point, the general manager and assistant general manager of the corporation are appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board of governors of the C.B.C. and not by the governor in council direct. They have a certain security of tenure which protects them from the government. Now we are going to make a radical departure by having direct appointments by the governor in council without the intervention of any other body. If I read the bill correctly, the governor in council can remove these people, as the minister says, if they become inefficient.
It is not the board of the C.B.C. that is going to determine whether they are inefficient; it is not the board of governors, it is the governor in council.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite clear that the power to remove is inherent only in the governor in council. It is the pleasure of the governor in council.


George Clyde Nowlan: It certainly is not on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors, but of the directors of the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly is not, and wherever they may pick up the gossip about inefficiency, it is only the governor in council who can exercise that power because it is his pleasure about which we are talking. The government is doing exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, and is putting a couple of its creatures in the two principal offices and saying that the moment they displease the governor in council they may be removed. Otherwise, what does this language mean?
I must say I challenged the minister yesterday and he has had 24 hours to produce any other statutes in which this incredible language occurs. I say "incredible" because it does seem to me it is a contradiction in terms when you say you are appointed for seven years and that you are appointed during pleasure. I can quite understand a person being appointed for seven years during good behaviour, but what does the seven years mean if it is during pleasure? It means nothing. It is just nonsense. It may be that there is some poorly drafted statute somewhere else that got through parliament, as this one has not yet, without anyone noticing this fact, but this one has been noticed. It does seem to me that, since it has been noticed, and after all the professions we have heard from the government of their desire to keep broadcasting independent of the government, here they are insisting on putting two of their creatures in office and saying that they can be removed any time that they decide, in their own way, in the closet, that these people are inefficient. Perhaps they just do not like them. They have to give no reasons to anybody. It does seem to me that this is the very negation of independence. It is impossible to imagine that even the purest government in the world would not, sometime or other, do that. Of course, this government may not always be here. It may be that some day some other hon. gentleman or some other hon. lady may be occupying their position.
It is just conceivable that there may be some minister who would not like the looks of the president or the vice-president. It does seem to me the minister ought to give some further consideration before he advocates this step which really legally destroys the slightest independence of this corporation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, that is nonsense, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member talks about a closet, but there is no area of the government service upon which the spotlight of

publicity will beat down with a greater intensity than on this matter of the C.B.C. When someone stretches his imagination to the point where he starts talking about dealings in a closet, and so on, he is stretching it pretty far. I can say that I can see some merit in this argument, that the appointment itself made by the governor in council could be one thing in which there could be political influence or almost anything, subject to whatever the judgment of the governor in council happened to be at that time. But once you make the appointment, believe you me any government that would change this appointment, particularly in the light of the qualification of seven years in there, and in addition to pleasure, would be going a long way. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would not be done on the recommendation of the board of directors.
My hon. friends have made a very strong and telling case on the use of the words, but I think they are very far removed from the practical aspects. I do not want to spend more time on it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give us any case where this device has been used in legislation before, the appointment during pleasure for a fixed period, of officials who are, in the first instance, appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of nobody else? He said there were other cases and I wonder if he can give the committee the benefit of his knowledge?


George Clyde Nowlan: I was told that, but I have not the other cases here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suggest for a minute that the minister has any intention of doing anything of this sort; I never suggested that. However, we are not making laws for this minister, we are making laws for sometime in the future. The minister spoke about the letter of the law. My understanding is that the law is all letters and that when you go into the courts, the courts do not construe the mind of the governor in council, they construe the words in the statute. Now, the terms "good behaviour" and "pleasure" are very ancient terms in the law and they are very well known to the constitution. They have been used throughout this statute, except in this one place. It does seem to me if there is ever one place they should be used it is here. I would have had much less quarrel with this bill if "pleasure" had been used in connection with most of the other appointments and "good behaviour" in connection with this one. Here are the two operating executives, the very two people that we depend upon the most to keep this
Broadcasting
organization independent, and they are going to be discriminated against by having this stain put against them.
All the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that the words "during good behaviour" should be put in here. He is not saying that there should have to be an address of both houses. All he is saying is that the governor in council should appoint them "during good behaviour" for a period of seven years; and if the governor in council has any cause such as that which the minister suggested-I am sure inefficiency is not good behaviour- or if the government finds any cause for their removal which is inconsistent with good behaviour, there would be no bar to that removal in the amendment moved by my friend the Leader of the Opposition. But it seems to me that we should not easily allow the government to put this kind of legislation on the statute books.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is the intention-I have not been able to find it in the provisions of this bill although it may be there-to provide that the president of the corporation should be the chairman of the board and preside over the meetings of the board? The minister has referred to him merely as the executive officer. But is he not also the chairman of the board and the one who presides over the board of directors?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think there is a section spelling that matter out in detail in the bill. But I think it was taken for granted that where someone was not named chairman or if there was not a definite designation, the chairman would be the president.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true with regard to the board of governors; he is designated.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is nothing in this bill to designate any member of the board of the corporation as chairman of the board?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


Leon David Crestohl: The minister may be noble in his intention as to whether or not the president or vice-president will be dismissed during the tenure of office of seven years. The question is this. Can they be dismissed if they incur the displeasure of the government? That is really the test. If that is the test and if they can be dismissed if they incur the displeasure of the government, then I think we are defeating our objective for this reason. We are not insulating them and giving the corporation the independence that we intend to give it. There is that difference. The president and the vice-president can hold office during pleasure and the others can do

Private Bills-Divorce so during good behaviour. Why is there that difference? I wonder whether the minister can explain to the house why the two principal officers can hold office at pleasure and the others can do so only during good behaviour? There must be a reason for that difference. I should like to hear from the minister an explanation for that difference.


George Clyde Nowlan: I gave it previously.
Amendment (Mr. Pearson) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 75.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 22 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, undismayed by the lack of success of our previous effort to amend this section and for reasons which have been made sufficiently clear in the statements which have already been made on this section, I would move:
That section 22 (2) be amended by inserting the words, "on the recommendation of the directors of the corporation'', after the word, "appointed" on line 3.
With this amendment, subsection 2 of section 22 would read:
(2) The president and vice-president shall be appointed on the recommendation of the directors of the corporation to hold office-
And so on.
Amendment (Mr. Pearson) negatived: Yeas, 20; Nays, 83.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the
amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall we revert to section 21?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15 (3), to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could obtain the consent of the house to make a motion in relation to Bill No. SD-231, for the relief of

Kenneth Herbert Gregory which was restored to the order paper this morning?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to make a motion as he has suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I move:
That Bill No. SD-231 entitled "An act for the relief of Kenneth Herbert Gregory" be recommitted to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, for the purpose of hearing evidence on paragraphs 11 and 13 of the petition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of private bills standing for consideration in the committee of the whole, is it agreed that they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.



JOHN SHAW MACNEILL CARSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-293, for the relief of John Shaw Macneill Carson- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. McCleave:: By way of explanation, I held up the bill the last day we considered it because one of the members of the House of Commons pointed out that documents relating to the divorce of the respondent wife on a previous occasion were not available. The Senate committee had waived the formal placing of documents before it, but since an hon. member raised an objection, rather than spend time on it I wrote immediately to the lawyer acting for the petitioner and he has forwarded to me a German court order showing that a divorce had been granted to the wife on a previous occasion and, secondly, a translation by a man competent to do this sort of work. We have both those documents in the file now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-304, for the relief of Freda Levine Schubert-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Lamberl:: Mr. Chairman, while 1 will say right at the outset that I will not oppose this particular bill, I should like to draw the attention of members of this committee to

certain facts in connection with it. This is a contested divorce and I feel that on that basis closer attention must be paid to the evidence which was before the Senate subcommittees, and that we should give it as close a look as possible.
First of all may I comment that this case appeared before the Senate subcommittees on two occasions and that finally the matter was referred to the full committee. On the first sitting the subcommittee consisted of five members of the Senate, and on the second sitting, of four. Those four had been members of the original committee. However, at the sitting of the second subcommittee, the hearing was adjourned sine die, and there was a final meeting of the subcommittee composed of six members, two only of whom were in attendance and heard evidence at the prior meetings. I would submit-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member give me the page reference for his last reference about six, please?


Norman Platt Lambert: Page 11 of the report. In
those circumstances I feel the members of this committee are quite entitled to review the evidence, being in the same position as the final meeting of the subcommittee which made the recommendation to the committee of the whole on divorce.
I must admit, and draw to the attention of the committee, that the subcommittees which heard the evidence in the original instance had the benefit of observing the demeanour of witnesses and that, in a matter of this kind, is of considerable importance. However, I should like to go into the evidence a little bit to indicate that while, possibly, the conclusion of the Senate committee in this instance might have been correct, I have some very grave reservations as to the full weight of the evidence.
First of all, we are concerned with an incident in a small restaurant in Montreal on September 11, 1955, which is approximately three years ago. I had some difficulty in assessing the precise accuracy of the evidence of the numerous witnesses concerning what happened on that particular morning. For instance, three witnesses were called who do not profess to know French and they commented on a so-called admission of misconduct by an alleged co-respondent, the admission and conversation leading up to it having been spoken in French. There was one witness who understood French and there was some suggestion that he translated as the conversation transpired.
If we look at the evidence of the witness Strober which appears at page 31 of the committee report we find the man admits he does not know French. He testified that the 57071-3-262
Private Bills-Divorce co-respondent who was a waitress in his employ was an hour late. She gave as her reason that she had been in a car with the respondent. She apparently used the word "coucher" which the witness said he understood to mean "sleep in a bed". It was in this language she described her relationship on that occasion with the respondent. However, the witness also said she had been away in a car. There is some doubt as to precisely what was said and what happened.
I might point out that a great deal of the evidence of all the witnesses was as to what happened prior to the respondent being present. That is why I have considerable reservations concerning just how much validity should be attached to the evidence of these witnesses. It is difficult to know how much of the evidence was based on fact and how much of it was hearsay evidence. A considerable amount of hearsay evidence appeared to enter the case. I should like to draw the attention of this committee to these considerations.
The evidence of the witness Morin appears at page 35. At no time did he identify the date on which the adultery is alleged. He was extremely vague as to when he had heard the conversation referred to and there was no corroboration that he had acted as translator. He appeared to draw conclusions from words that were alleged to have been said in that he states, in effect, "it must have meant this" or "it must have meant that". He prefaced many of his statements with comments of that kind and there is little evidence of direct statements.
The evidence given by the witness Rittmer which appears on page 37, I would submit, contains a great deal of hearsay. This man clearly admits he does not know French. As a matter of fact, there is some suggestion that he is not too familiar with the English language either and so it is rather difficult to know precisely what he might have stated if he had fully understood either or both languages.
I wish also to make reference to an unhappy event that occurred. The plaintiff closed her case. The respondent who was under escort since he was serving a sentence in a Quebec prison met the case against him under advice of counsel by denying the allegations made. He denied his presence at the restaurant where these statements were alleged to have been made and he denied knowing the corespondent. Following the close of the case the committee adjourned its hearings and subsequently the plaintiff presented another witness, Marafino apparently in rebuttal to the evidence given by the respondent to the effect that he was not present or did not know
4142	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce the named participant. The committee had reservations about hearing this evidence. However, it was heard and subsequently there appears in the record of the proceedings a statement to the effect that the committee decided to disregard the evidence of that witness. I would remind hon. gentlemen that we are all human beings. Regardless of whether the committee felt it should disregard the evidence of the last witness called, the members of that committee heard the evidence and their minds may have been conditioned or influenced by that testimony. They should not have heard the evidence of the witness Marafino.
These are the reservations I have about the evidence in this case notwithstanding the fact that many witnesses appeared before the committee. On the basis of their demeanour the committee may have preferred to give weight to the witnesses appearing on behalf of the petitioner and to have disregarded the evidence given by the respondent. I feel, as an hon. member of this committee who is asked to pass on a bill of this kind and as a practising lawyer, that I must indicate my reservations as to the type of evidence which was allowed to be presented in this case and as to the manner in which it was presented. I believe great care should be exercised in these matters. As I said, I will not oppose this motion but I wish to draw these salient facts to the attention of this committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West has brought out in a striking manner a point which should be of interest to all hon. members when we deal with these divorce cases. This is not an easy case; indeed, it is an extremely difficult one. Those hon. members who have read the evidence will recall the circumstances under which the husband and wife lived together. They will recall her constant difficulty in obtaining any support whatever from her husband and also the fact that a large part of his life has been spent in certain institutions in the province of Quebec. There was also the circumstance that when he appeared before the subcommittee on July 8 he did not have a lawyer. Statements were made by the witnesses concerning the restaurant incident and he did not cross-examine the people who made those statements. Subsequently when the case was closed it was decided to reopen it and the moneys paid by the wife to have the case brought before the other place were used to help counsel, who had been appointed by the subcommittee, in an effort to find the key witness in the case, the co-respondent, the waitress with whom he is alleged to have committed adultery. It was a difficult case from start to finish and I suppose any lawyer would have his reservations about it.


I know that in my own particular case, for instance, I have read it some four or five times. Perhaps they had little precedent to guide them but what did guide that committee of the Senate, I am convinced, was their desire to be fair to the respondent, a man who does not enjoy the normal freedom of other members of society.
The hon. member for Edmonton West brought forth facts which-after the house heard his eloquent speech setting forth the matters-may cause some doubts as to whether we should consider it. I would point out that this matter has received the most careful scrutiny over a period of days. As a matter of fact, the first hearing started on July 8, and it went on until August 6 before the Senate heard the final witness. As the hon. member has pointed out, the Senate decided to disregard the evidence of that witness because, I presume, he could properly have been before the subcommittee on a previous occasion.
The committees of the other house of parliament are charged with this onerous duty of listening to the witnesses in the first instance, assessing their evidence and determining the reliability and the credibility of witnesses. If ever there was a case in which everything turned on the credibility and reliability of witnesses and perhaps very little on the printed record that is available, I would think it would be this case.
Unfortunately, the practice of asking leading questions of the witness was used, such as, "What were you doing on September 11, 1955?" the date of the offence. This, of course, was direct prompting which would not ordinarily happen in a court of law. Apart from circumstances such as that I think the respondent was given every opportunity and the fairest of treatment over there. I think that the subcommittee of the other place, acting on its impressions of the witnesses they had before them and the witnesses they saw there, came to a conclusion. My hon. friend did point out that the case was contested there. It was contested there, but it was not contested before us.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. Ricard:: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will recall that in order to return the evidence of those bills to the Senate a motion is required

after each bill. They could all be dealt with by one order of the house if the house were agreeable. With unanimous consent, Mr. McCleave, seconded by Mr. Wratten, moves:
That the Clerk of the house be directed to for. ward a message to the Senate after the third reading of every divorce bill returning such evidence and papers as may have accompanied any such bill to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-14, respecting Stanmount Pipe Line Company- Mr. Morton-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the sponsor of the bill can inform the committee whether the minutes and proceedings of the standing committee dealing with this pipe line are available to members of the committee of the whole. My understanding is that the evidence has not yet been printed. I do not think it is required by the rules of the house that the minutes be available by the time any bill gets back to the House of Commons, but I would think it is the sensible thing for members of the committee of the whole to insist that before they discuss the particulars of any given bill after it is reported back to the committee the report from the committee should be in their hands. Surely that is the whole purpose of sending a bill such as this to a committee.


Mr. Morton:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the hon. member. Perhaps the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Peterborough, could tell whether the minutes are available. I have not been confronted with this point before because usually we have representatives from all groups in the house on the committee. At that time they raise their objections and they have the right to examine and cross-examine the various members of the firm who are there for that purpose. I think the purpose of the committee is to give everyone who has a question to ask the opportunity to get first-hand information. If I recall correctly, there was not a member from the group led by the hon. member for Assiniboia at the meeting. However, I will ask the chairman of the committee whether the minutes are available.


Mr. Fraser:: We did not have a reporter in the committee at that time to take evidence. It is very seldom that there is a reporter present to report evidence on bills of this kind, because the committee counts on the members being present to get the information.


Hazen Robert Argue: All the members of the house cannot be members of the committee. Therefore, we are at a disadvantage if the evidence is not taken.
57071-3-2624
Private Bills


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Evidence was taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: Excuse me, the evidence was not reported so that it could be placed in the hands of members of parliament. Evidence was heard but was not recorded.
We are opposed to this bill. I am not going to try to block the house in dealing with it today; I merely wish to register a continued opposition to the passage of this bill.
As has already been said on a previous occasion, the Stanmount Pipe Line Company is wholly owned by the Imperial Oil Limited. Imperial Oil Limited is part of an international cartel. Imperial Oil Limited itself is a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, and I do not think it is wise for parliament to increase the power of this international cartel as represented by the Imperial Oil Limited. I think the stand of the Imperial Oil Limited has been in complete opposition to the building of a trans-Canada oil pipe line to supply to the Montreal area oil from Saskatchewan and Alberta. I suggest the stand taken by the Imperial Oil Limited has been a narrow one and has been governed solely by the financial interests of the Imperial Oil, and it is an endeavour by this international oil cartel to maintain the Montreal market for oil from Imperial Oil and its associates.
The independent companies in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are most concerned that a pipe line be provided to the Montreal area. If passage of this bill might result in such a line being built that would be a strong reason why members should support it, but I think the very fact that Imperial Oil wants this kind of authority when it is. opposed to the building of such a line shows that the passage of the bill will not mean that the result I have suggested will be achieved.
Another reason we are opposed to the passage of the bill at this time is the pending report of the Borden energy commission. We are hopeful that the report will deal, in fact we are certain it will, in a comprehensive manner with the oil and gas problems of the nation. We think that in the light of whatever report is made members would be in a much better position to judge whether or not the passage of this bill is in the public interest. On the basis of the evidence I have now I suggest its passage is not in the public interest.
According to an Ottawa Journal report of last Saturday, which report was subsequently picked up by the Canadian Press, the interim report of the Borden royal commission on energy is likely to favour a pipe line to the Montreal area estimated to cost $375 million. This is a proposition which will receive the full support of the people of western Canada who are looking for markets at this time for their very important oil production. As a

Private Bills
result of a reduction in the United States market for Canadian oil there has been a substantial cut in the production of oil on the prairies and this has had adverse economic results on the revenues of two provincial governments and the welfare of the people of those provinces.
I notice that the hon. member for Calgary South is in his seat. He is an authority on this whole question. He has taken a great deal of interest in the problem and I am certain that he supports the opening up of the Montreal market for Canadian oil. If passage of the bill would bring that day closer I would certainly give it my support but I do not think its passage would in any way solve the pressing problems of the oil industry at this time.
There is another reason why I am opposed to the course being followed by Imperial Oil in seeking to obtain the power through the passage of this bill to build a trans-Canada pipe line to Montreal. I have in mind the report that the United States government, instead of moving in the direction of easing the restrictions against importation of Canadian oil, may in fact increase those restrictions and lower the quotas for Canadian oil entering that market. It has been reported in the press that secretary of commerce Weeks of the United States government has asked for a further survey of the oil situation in the United States and that new quotas are likely to be posted within the next 30 days. According to press reports in all probability this will mean a reduction of import quotas on oil allowed into that country. I express the hope that these reports are not well founded, that the United States will not take this action and that in a short time restrictions on Canadian oil entering that market will be removed.
But with this present and perhaps growing danger I feel that parliament should be directing its attention to solving the oil problems facing the nation and not giving further strength and powers to Imperial Oil Limited, part of an international cartel which in my judgment, so far as Canadian markets are concerned, is operating and acting in a manner detrimental to the welfare of the nation. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we in the C.C.F. are still opposed to the passage of the bill.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say only a word or two because I recognize any lengthy observations on my part would only tend to satisfy the purpose of our good friends in the C.C.F. in that we would talk out the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I think I made it quite clear that while we were opposing the bill we had no intention of blocking it at this or any other stage in the debate.

I hope that the hon. member will understand that if he and other members should continue to debate the bill until six o'clock it will not indicate, as far as we are concerned, a deliberate effort to block the bill. We are opposed to it but we are prepared to accept the decision of the house.


Arthur Smith: I was honestly mistaken and I make the necessary apology.
I should like to make two comments on the remarks made not only in this but in the previous discussion by the hon. member for Assiniboia. First, I think some reference should be made to the status of Imperial Oil Limited who, through the bill before us, are requesting the authority at some point to construct a pipe line. While Imperial Oil has on a number of occasions registered its protest against the eventual imposition of any controls which might effect a restriction of foreign crudes coming into Canada, I think most members of the industry and most members of the house, I hope, will agree that Imperial Oil is itself concerned with the marketing problems of Canadian oil.
The second point I should like to make is that while it is quite true that I disagree in some respects with their arguments that have been presented to the Borden commission and while I certainly continue to support moving more oil out of western Canada to Eastern Canada because of the absolutely essential necessity of providing assistance to the independent operators, until the Borden commission has reported I do not here challenge the evidence submitted to it. That is the responsibility of the commission.
To deal specifically with the bill, I feel that all the protection necessary is vested in the board of transport commissioners to give consideration to the economic merits of such a project, and there is no doubt in my mind that when the Borden commission makes its findings and gives consideration to the future establishment of an energy commission it will make some reference to the over-all programming of the development of oil and natural gas. This is their purpose under their terms of reference.
However, all this bill provides is the right of this company to appear before the board of transport commissioners. If we found that we were, today, becoming involved in the economics of this problem, then I would agree with the member for Assiniboia that the facts are not all before us. Certainly by the time the company concerned with this particular bill is in a position to move ahead with it, assuming they do, then it would become the responsibility of the proper officials, whether it be an energy commission or the present facilities of the transport

board, and they would have to make a decision. I am quite certain that the rights of both the oil producers and the people of Canada will be taken into consideration at that time.
Before I sit down I should like to close with the comment that I think the hon. member for Assiniboia is perhaps being a little unkind to the sponsors of the bill. I have not any particular reason to have sympathy for them, but he referred to the fact that parliament should not give Imperial Oil this further control over the oil resources of Canada. He says that the powers of this company would not be used really to develop the resources of this company but to further impede the development. Then, he said, too, that Imperial Oil is a cartel and that Imperial Oil had been blocking resource developments for years. I would remind him, as I am certain he knows, that it was this same company that drilled 107 dry wells, and some at a cost of $1 million, before the Leduc No. 1 was discovered and brought a good gravity crude into this country. I think it should be kept in mind that this is a company which employs Canadians almost throughout; it has developed many secondary industries from its refinery centres, and it has produced substantial prosperity throughout very large sections of Canada. They together with independent companies have brought Canada's petroleum industry to the peak at which it is today. I feel that this should be said in their defence. This is not a private cartel and the passage of this bill will not impede future development of oil or gas in Canada. The purpose of this measure is merely to give the company the right to appear before a properly appointed board to give consideration, at the appropriate time, to whether or not it is economically advisable to build a pipe line.
For these reasons, I think the people of western Canada and in particular the independent operators would have no objection to proceeding with this bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure the hon. member for Calgary South did not mean to say that I had said anything unkind about the sponsor of the bill because the hon. member for Davenport is a good friend of mine.


Mr. Palleii:: Does he admit it?


Hazen Robert Argue: He can amend that statement if he cares to, but from my point of view he is a good friend. I do not think the hon. member would suggest 1 have said anything unkind about him. I may have said some rather unkind things about Imperial Oil, but being a very large company with world-wide interests and being part of a well-known international cartel, I do not suppose my
Private Bills
small voice raised in the House of Commons will affect Imperial Oil to any real extent.
It has been argued that we do not need to be concerned unduly in passing this bill because before any pipe line is proceeded with there must be approval by the board of transport commissioners and that board will take care of the public interest. Even if that were the case, and the board could be relied upon to take care of the public interest, I do not feel that removes from parliament the overriding responsibility to see to it that charters which are given to companies are, in themselves, in the public interest. One of the reasons I have opposed the passage of this legislation at this time is not only the pending report of the Borden energy commission, but the weight of evidence which suggests that there is anything but a certainty that this company will need the powers in this bill before the next session of parliament. In other words, this is not emergency legislation required by this company in order that it may continue its development. This is merely a standby authority that the company wishes to have believing that it might, at some future date, need it.
There is no certainty at all; in fact, there is a likelihood the company will not be building the pipe line before the next session of parliament. I suggest, therefore, there is no ground for hurry and there is a real reason, in view of the pending report of the energy commission, why parliament should delay approval of this bill until a further session.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr.   Morion@: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



BARBARA JANET DILLANE BARR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-247, for the relief of Barbara Janet Dillane Barr- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Peters:: Some question arises as to residence qualifications in connection with this bill. Would the sponsor of the bill care to comment on that?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, certainly. The reason this bill comes to us out of order in so far as the other bills are concerned is precisely the point raised by the hon. member. It was a point upon which the committee experienced some difficulty, and upon which

Private Bills
we had to consult with the law officer of parliament, Dr. Maurice Ollivier.
The circumstances are, Mr. Chairman, that the respondent is a native of Ontario. He did move for a brief period to the province of Quebec. The couple, when married, lived for a while in the province of Quebec. About 11 months ago, the wife was deserted and apparently the respondent returned to the province of Ontario, living in the city of Ottawa. The evidence on that point is not conclusive. Certainly his parents live in the city of Ottawa and certainly the petition and other papers in the case were served upon him there.
Those members who looked into this matter pointed out that in Beauchesne's volume the matter of petitions received a great deal of consideration. Dr. Beauchesne clearly states that petitions should not be presented to parliament here or at Westminster unless the petitioner has exhausted all other remedies and has no other place to go. Obviously that is the old practice. In this case it appears, at least on the face of it, that the petitioner -and it is the domicile of the husband which governs; the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the wife-should not have brought her case before parliament but rather should have taken it first to the supreme court of Ontario.
As the committee can readily appreciate, this was a matter of extremely important principle. For that reason we spent some time the other day discussing it with Dr. Ollivier. It is competent for parliament to act in divorce petitions from any province of Canada. But in recent years it has been the practice, since provincial divorce courts were established, to consider only the cases irom Newfoundland and Quebec. When this matter came up for consideration, since it was uncontested, nobody had raised the point except a few hon. members. I wrote to the solicitor for the petitioner in the city of Montreal and asked him if he would submit a brief on this point. We also had the benefit of a brief from Dr. Ollivier and his assistant Mr. Batt. In the brief of the petitioner's solicitor there was some argument to the effect that there was evidence from which you could gather that the domicile of the husband had shifted to the city of Montreal. Personally as I know the evidence, I may say that the wife said that they had established a home in Montreal; but the home turned out to be an apartment and the purchase of a building as such was not involved.
As can be seen, the committee was obliged to labour under a goodly number of difficulties in connection with this matter. We finally resolved it by deciding to report the bill back without amendment. I think perhaps

I can fairly state that the members of the committee, on looking at this evidence, felt that the Senate committee might have been justified in drawing the inference that there was domicile in the province of Quebec, or again that this was one of those borderline cases of a man shuttling back and forth over the boundaries; and that the wife might have gone to the supreme court of Ontario only to find that the supreme court might have told her to go to parliament. Whichever course she took might have been the wrong one, as you can appreciate. Hence, Mr. Chairman, that is the position in which we found ourselves. But the recommendation of the committee was unanimous that the bill go back before the house. I think the hon. members raised a very useful question and I hope that this report will go down to the bar of the city of Montreal so that the lawyers there will know that we are looking into this matter and were concerned about it in this case. I hope they will govern themselves accordingly in the future and at least present much stronger evidence than was presented in this case if they are going to rely on domicile in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED

Murray Douglas Morton: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, respecting Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could we have from the sponsor a brief explanation of the purpose of this bill?


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, the sum total of this bill is that the company is asking for permission to increase its number of directors up to 15 so that it may have a better representation of its directorship across Canada and also to enable it to have an executive committee to carry on its day by day work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of this group that seems to be a very reasonable request and provision. After listening to the explanation given by the sponsor, we have nothing further to say.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-55, to establish a board of broadcast governors and to provide for the continuance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Mr. Nowlan

Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Edward Rea: We were discussing clause 21. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On clause 21-Interpretation.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. We have passed
clause 22 and we have reverted to clause 21. Shall clause 21 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is an amendment to clause 21 which has not been disposed of. The hon. member who moved the amendment does not appear to be here at the moment.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment? The amendment reads:
That clause 21 be amended by deleting the present sub-paragraph (d) thereof and by substituting therefor a new sub-paragraph (d) to read as follows: "Board of Broadcast Governors means the Board of Broadcast Governors as set forth in Part I of this act and is the board to which the C.B.C. shall report."


George Clyde Nowlan: We let this clause stand. Quite frankly, I have forgotten the reason at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can recall it. The purpose of the amendment as I recollect it, was to substitute for the minister the board of broadcast governors in this clause, but as our
Broadcasting
amendment on clause 22 was turned down, it would seem to me that it would make sheer nonsense of the bill to pass this amendment now. We were in favour of the amendment in itself, on the assumption that the government would see reason about the substantive clause, but I do not think we should make ourselves ridiculous by voting for this in view of the decision of the committee on the substantive clause.


George Clyde Nowlan: As the hon. gentleman indicates, I could not accept this. If we were to make this change it would certainly not fit in with the pattern which has been established here, and it would be a rather ridiculous procedure. The mover is not here, and I do not want to take advantage of him in his absence-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should we not vote on it and dispose of it?


George Clyde Nowlan: -but perhaps we had better deal with it now.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we call yeas and nays?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I declare the amendment lost.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the definition of broadcasting still follow in all detail the former definition?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No new methods have been discovered since the last time this was enacted?


George Clyde Nowlan: There are sufficient technical words used here, I think, to cover anything.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On clause 24-President and vice-president.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Just a moment. You are going very fast. I think there was some exception taken to the third subsection of this clause or to a similar clause by the hon. member for Cartier, if I remember correctly. I do not know whether he has looked at this again and satisfied himself about it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the objection to which the hon. member has referred was raised by the hon. member for Cartier last night and referred to temporary appointments made

Broadcasting
when the chairman and vice-chairman were both absent. We were then dealing with the board of broadcast governors. The same arrangement would apply here, and there could be a temporary appointment in the case of the unfortunate absence or death of a president or a vice-president.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 25-Remuneration.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to suggest any amendment to this clause because I do not think I have anything appropriate to suggest, and I question whether I would have power to move an amendment if I did because the only kind of an amendment I could move would be to fix a specific amount, which it might not be competent for a member on this side of the committee to do. But I just want to point out that this once again underlines the shocking change in the character of this legislation. Not only are the president and vice-president to be appointed at the pleasure-at the whim-of the governor in council, but they are to be paid any salary which the governor in council pleases. This underlines the extent to which in the future the corporation will be a mere creature in the hands of the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should not like to allow that to go unanswered. The hon. gentleman always says these things so forcibly and with such apparent venom, or-I do not want to say "insincerity" because I know that neither term is quite appropriate-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister
upon reflection-I do not object to the word "venom" in the least-will appreciate that when he questions my sincerity he is imputing motives, or so it would seem to me.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not imputing motives, but in this atmosphere one does not want to become too emphatic, even as emphatic as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate sometimes allows himself to be. When he talks about "creatures of the government", "closets", "pressure" and all the rest, I suppose these things are possible-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I trust the minister does not object to the word "closet". It is, of course, just a synonym for cabinet.


George Clyde Nowlan: That, of course, is the historical background and I think, that as he goes on, the hon. member's earlier training may suggest some things which went on in the closets which certainly do not go on in this government. When one speaks of creatures of the government and of the safeguards which were always invoked in former legislation and which are now disregarded, I would recall that the hon. gentleman has stressed time

and time again the great contribution which was made by the Bennett government-it is one of the few things he recognizes-in the establishment of the old board of broadcast governors and of the safeguards which were included in that act. I should also like to suggest to the hon. gentleman-and this may be one reason why he is so unduly suspicious today of other governments-that there was a gentleman named Hector Charlesworth who was named director of the board of broadcast governors in 1932 by the Bennett government. He was appointed for good behaviour and he was given a 10-year contract. What greater safeguards could you have than that?
Then the prime minister, from whose closet the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was not too far removed, saw fit to remove Hector Charlesworth despite the fact that he had seven years to go. So the mechanism of an act does not necessarily guarantee protection if the intention is there to get rid of someone, and that happened on that occasion. That is the record of one of the earlier chairmen of this board, the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Canadian radio commission.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Canadian radio commission, yes, afterwards the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is why the hon. member is somewhat suspicious of what may be contained even in an act which perhaps superficially does not contain the same safeguards as the former act did, and yet that result was achieved.
Again all I can say is that I am quite sure the hon. member will be satisfied and if he is not, as I said, we have a committee coming up next winter. He will see this in operation and I am quite sure the officers will not suffer the dire penalty that the hon. member apparently fears they will incur.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the minister does not expect me to allow his peculiarly coloured version of history to be left on the record unchallenged. What happened, of course, was not what the minister suggested at all. The parliament of 1936 saw fit to pass new legislation to create a new body called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which was to supplant the Canadian radio commission and they saw fit to repeal the act which created the Canadian radio commission. It was done in the open in parliament after a parliamentary debate and there was no question of any firing or anything of that sort. That was the action of parliament. What parliament does is one thing, but what I am objecting to is the opportunity this bill provides to have things done in secret, and since the minister

does not like the word I used before I will say in the secret of the cabinet.
When the minister and his colleagues sat on this side of the house we listened hour after hour to the most eloquent speeches about the days when the Tories were going to come back into power and throw open the windows of the privy council so the people of this country would know what was going on, and now we have legislation like this.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that when we discussed a similar clause earlier in the bill I expressed an apprehension that the salaries might be modified after having been fixed by the privy council. I asked the minister to give the committee some assurance that the salaries would not be modified. We are hoping that the directors will be completely independent but if it will be possible by order in council to move the salaries and reduce them to $1 of course these officers will be constantly fearful. I would therefore ask the minister again to give the committee his assurance that once the salaries are fixed they will not be reduced.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, Mr. Chairman, no government can bind another government. That is recognized by all. But subject to that I can assure the hon. member and the committee there will be no reduction in salaries as I outlined last night and as anticipated by the hon. member.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this discussion I pointed out that there were three permanent salaried directors. To sit they need a quorum of five. They are entitled to have seven on the board. They are to be given a remuneration of $100 for each sitting day. This could amount in the course of a year to a salary higher than that paid to the Prime Minister if they were to sit almost every day and there is nothing to prevent their doing so. Why should the minister not place a ceiling on the maximum allowed? Once they are in they can do whatever they like.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I said last night, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to fix a ceiling on this matter. This is an easier question to deal with than the board of broadcast governors which is entirely new. I would anticipate that the meetings of the directors of the C.B.C. would roughly correspond to those of the board of governors of the C.B.C. I believe they were paid $50 a day and usually they meet for three days, so one could work out an analogy based on that. I can assure the hon. member that if any director sits so long or so frequently that he draws a salary equivalent to that of the Prime Minister on the basis of $100 a day it might be a 57071-3-263
Broadcasting
matter for "cause" rather than "pleasure". That is certainly not going to happen but they will have meetings to oversee the affairs of the corporation. The advice we received from the senior officials of the C.B.C. was that the remuneration heretofore was not sufficient and great difficulties had been encountered in holding the meetings. It was on their advice we accepted the figure of $100. Of course we accept full responsibility for it but I want it to be known it was decided on after careful consultation.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I believe the danger which the hon. member for Hull pointed out might be obviated if we were to follow the honorarium that is fixed by the present legislation. The executive committee members are paid an honorarium of $1,000 a year. If we were to fix a flat honorarium per annum we would not run into the possible risk pointed out by the hon. member for Hull.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, it is a risk that can be averted and it will be taken care of by the corporation. I cannot go any further on the matter at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 26-Employment of staff.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he would give us a general explanation of this clause. It closely follows the wording of the old act but I wonder if there is any different intention in subclause 1 which I do not find in the existing act. I just wondered what was the reason for its inclusion. Is there anything implicit in it that is new?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the only reason it may be a little different from the old act is this. Hon. members will remember that employees of the board of broadcast governors will be appointed by the civil service commission. If they were employed by the corporation they will continue to be employed by the corporation. It is spelled out in the first few lines to distinguish from those appointed to the board by the commission.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain something that has always been a mystery to me. I am inclined to become a bit mystified at times. Why is it that the servants of a crown corporation are not servants of Her Majesty?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure the hon. member does not want me to become involved in an explanation of a constitutional legal question on which I frankly could not fully satisfy the hon. member unless I had the precedents of some of the old decisions before me but there are legal and technical reasons for

Broadcasting
this and some time the hon. member and I can go down to the parliamentary library and I will endeavour to satisfy his curiosity in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before this clause passes I should like to say it is one clause which does seem to be quite satisfactory and I say that for this reason. It bears a marked contrast to the kind of legislation we considered the other day when the national capital planning commission was under discussion. The minister in this case does seem to have no intention of using a back-door method of getting rid of members of the staff he does not want and he does seem to have safeguarded the rights of the staff and I congratulate him for doing that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 27-Agent for Her Majesty.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that come to my mind on this clause. Is it a new clause? What schedule under the Financial Administration Act does the C.B.C. follow? As the hon. minister knows, there are a number of schedules in the Financial Administration Act which make a distinction between various crown companies. For instance, the Canadian National Railways have powers, in so far as administration and the expenditure of money are concerned, which the national harbours board has not. While the Canadian National Railways must come to parliament each year for an appropriation of funds, the position concerning the national harbours board is somewhat different. It also is another agency of the crown. It approves of certain expenditures and they go to the treasury board and receive concurrence there. Will the minister tell us in what schedule of the Financial Administration Act this falls and, for instance, what are the differences rinancially between the new crown corporation and the one which existed heretofore?


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not have the category in mind, but I did have the classification. I am advised by the officials that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation falls in schedule D and, as the hon. member will recall, that is the one under which the greatest freedom is exercised in any of the crown corporations. I have that particularly in mind because a question arose with respect to insurance, whether it came under the insurance act under which crown property is insured or whether it did not. It was suggested that we should move into another category in order to get the benefit of that act, and I registered objection to the C.B.C. moving to another one because I wanted to

maintain it in the highest classification of all and that, I am told, is schedule D. That is where it has been throughout the years when the hon. gentleman was responsible for administration as one of those on the treasury benches.
The other question he asked was as to the moneys. As he knows, the financial situation is this. Under the present act, under which we are operating, the minister must recommend all expenditures to treasury board and thereafter to cabinet, if it should go to cabinet, involving more than $25,000. Under this bill, if adopted, that ceiling is raised from $25,000 to $100,000, so that in the future the minister responsible for reporting for the C.B.C. will have to recommend expenditures only over $100,000. From that has been excluded any moneys to be paid for programming or program material, so that there will not be any suggestion of any influence by the government or the minister on funds for programming on program material although, of course, the C.B.C. will have to operate within the over-all budget which is provided for it by parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: The first question I asked was, is it a new section?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, this actually is not a new section. There may be a slight redrafting. The hon. member understands there are some implications, perhaps, in this section on various problems which could arise, which we are anticipating in this, but essentially it is exactly the same section as heretofore. The corporation was an agency of Her Majesty and it is today.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 28.-Executive committee.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I see some danger in clause 28 where it speaks of the delegation to an executive committee of all or any of its powers. If the corporation can appoint an executive committee from amongst the directors, it can appoint a committee of part-time directors. It can take three or five part-time directors and even exclude the president, the vice-president and the third permanent director, and those part-time directors can be constituted as an executive committee and as such can be given all the powers of the corporation, if they so desire. I can understand that it is necessary at times to delegate powers to an executive or to some officers to do certain things, but I should like to caution the minister that this clause as it reads now makes it possible for five of the part-time directors to receive the delegation of all the powers of the corporation, which is somewhat dangerous. If such a thing theoretically were

to take place, then five part-time directors would be serving continuously at the rate of $100 a day, as provided by the act. I therefore point out this possible danger to the minister and ask him whether that is really the intention. I cannot read the clause in any other way except that it is possible to take five of the part-time directors and delegate powers to them and they could sit continuously at the rate of $100 per day, which is certainly far beyond what I am sure the minister anticipates. Therefore, 1 suggest to him that he re-read this clause and study it once more very carefully in the light of the observations which I have made.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would refer the hon. member to section 31 which gives the corporation power to make bylaws respecting the calling of meetings of the corporation, the conduct of business thereat, the duties and conduct of the directors, officers and employees of the corporation, and generally for the management of the affairs of the corporation. In other words, the executive committee will, if appointed-and I presume one would be appointed-be subject to the bylaws which will be passed not by two or three directors but by the directors as a whole. I can assure the hon. member that there is going to be no danger that three or four part-time members on this executive committee will be sitting here in Ottawa drawing $100 a day or anything of that kind. The whole matter will be controlled by the bylaws of the corporation which actually is what has happened in the past. They will be bylaws under which the board of governors can set up committees and delegate authority, and we have taken the provision of the existing act almost word for word.


Leon David Crestohl: Does the minister not think he could avoid it if he simply said that the executive committee should consist of at least a certain number of permanent directors and, say, only two of the part-time directors, if necessary? If it is left wide open as the clause now reads, the minister can easily see that five part-time directors could be appointed as an executive committee, which I know the minister does not intend to happen.


George James McIlraith: Section 9 of part I of the bill has to do with the executive committee of the board of broadcast governors consisting of three full-time members and four part-time members appointed by the board. This is not followed with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has a board of directors of which two are 57071-3-263J
Broadcasting
full-time personnel and the rest are parttime personnel. There does seem to be some real difficulty with the clause as it now stands.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is a difference there. In the section dealing with the C.B.C. we are following pretty well the existing C.B.C. legislation. Bear in mind, these are directors who are going to be responsible for the business administration. Primarily the thinking of the government in appointing this board of directors is that they will be responsible for the business administration and the details, and so on, of the financial operations primarily of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Now, my hon. friend refers to the board of broadcast governors. There you are dealing with a national body engaged in great questions of policy, shall we say, and the government wanted to make it abundantly plain that there would be a majority of non-permanent members there so as to avoid any suggestion that this was going to become a narrow, small group controlled, shall we say, by the permanent officials in Ottawa. Really, it is because of that, because of the difference in the function, that I think the board of directors who will be businessmen primarily appointed to look after the affairs of the C.B.C. can be trusted to lay down regulations and bylaws which will cover meetings of directors. The government had it spelled out in the legislation that with respect to the board of broadcast governors there ought to be a quorum consisting of non-permanent members, and so on.


George James McIlraith: But in the clause dealing with the executive committee of the board of broadcast governors the government spelled out therein that the three full-time members must be on that executive committee. It has not done that with the executive committee for the C.B.C. and you can see all sorts of difficulties. If the government appoints seven new directors and they come to a meeting and, because they did not get the permanent appointments, promptly appoint themselves to the executive committee, it is not a very fitting way to direct the management of this operation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is a rather discomforting tenor to the minister's last remarks about the board of directors being a group of businessmen designed to see that the corporation operates efficiently. From the minister's comments I took that to be the general purpose of the group of directors. We would expect that but surely one of the main functions of the board of governors of the C.B.C. in the past has been to be an advisory group as far as programming is concerned and to

Broadcasting
put forward the point of view the minister mentioned earlier about programs being in good taste and of a good level. I am wondering whether that aspect of the work of the board of governors is going to be played down as far as the directors are concerned or are they still to have that general role?


George Clyde Nowlan: They will have that general role subject, of course, to the general oversight of the board of broadcast governors with respect to programming as set forth in part I.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 29-Objects and powers.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be much happier about this clause if the minister could tell us explicitly in what respects it differs from the objects and powers set out in the existing legislation. I simply have not had time to go through it and examine it in detail.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have both pieces of legislation here and if the hon. gentleman wants to pursue this matter further I can tell him that the powers set forth here are contained almost entirely in the present Canadian Broadcasting Act. Of course, there has been removed from these powers the power to make regulations, and that is the essential difference between the two sections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume there are some changes in detail and, after all, this is the clause that gives the corporation its powers to do things. It is the operative section and I really think something a little more specific :than a general answer should be given to the .committee with respect to this clause. We should know precisely what the changes are.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is a long column of a page and a half. Subclause (a) is identical, maintain and operate broadcasting stations. I would say that subclause (b), establish, subject to the approval of the governor in council, broadcasting stations, is identical, although perhaps one or two words have been left out. In the present clause the words are "such broadcasting stations as the corporation considers necessary or desirable" and in the old act there are the words "from time to time."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister a question about that? That would appear to me to conflict with the powers of the board of broadcast governors. Perhaps he would like to clear that up.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is exactly what I said. I told the draftsmen that they had pulled a boner and they pointed out to me the fact that this whole thing is subject to part I of the act and therefore subject to the board of broadcast governors. That applies also to

regulations, although they have to be approved by the governor in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what part II
means, is it? In other words, the corporation may decide to establish a station but before it can do so it must go to the board of broadcast governors and get their approval and also the approval of the governor in council.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. gentleman will look at subclause 2 of clause 29 he will see that the corporation is bound by the provisions of part I.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not being a lawyer, I must confess that I was puzzled by subclause 2.


George James McIlraith: Does not the essential difference in clause 29 lie in the fact that the corporation is not charged with any responsibility? The clause now reads:
(1) The corporation is established for the purpose of operating a national broadcasting service, and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, has power to-
The powers then enumerated are largely similar to those in the present act with the exception of the power to make regulations. But the old act had a wholly different approach to the question. The act now in existence reads as follows:
The corporation shall-
I emphasize the word "shall".
-carry on a national broadcasting service within Canada and for that purpose may-
Then the section went on to enumerate the powers the corporation had for that purpose. There is a basic and fundamental difference here and I should like to get some explanation of it. The former legislation charged the corporation with a definite responsibility and gave it a duty to perform. The new legislation now before us does no such thing at all. The corporation does not need to do anything under the new legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to enter into a legal argument with my learned and hon. friend on that score. He may see a fundamental difference from the old act. The old act says "the corporation shall carry on a national broadcasting service within Canada and for that purpose may-". This bill says that "the corporation is established for the purpose of operating a national broadcasting service, and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, has power to". The difference there, of course, is between may do something or has power to. There is no doubt in the world that when the new act is proclaimed the corporation created by this part will take over the functions and activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which will have been

carried on up to that moment and will operate them in pursuance of clause 29.


George James McIlraith: But the difference is very real. It is much deeper than the minister indicates. The difference is that the act now in force compels the corporation to carry on a national broadcasting service. The new legislation does not compel it to do any such thing. It does not charge it with any such responsibility at all. It gives it the power to do a whole lot of things but it leaves out the main purpose of the whole legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: In that regard I must say I have been a little bit surprised in this debate. Very often quotations are made from the Winnipeg Free Press which is usually fairly close to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I would refer them to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which I received this morning. The editorial says that the bill does authorize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to carry on a national broadcasting service and has created no difference in the broadcasting service whatsoever. Apparently there is a slight difference of opinion in this particular regard, but I am sure that we on this side of the house will accept the opinion of the Winnipeg Free Press rather than that of hon. gentlemen opposite.


George James McIlraith: It is not good enough to take the opinion of an editorial writer on a matter like this. I think the Free Press is a very fine newspaper and I am very glad that the minister finds time to read it, but I think he should address himself to the point. The point is very real. Under the clause in the new bill it is quite easy to get away from the main responsibility of operating a national broadcasting service. There is nothing in the legislation parliament is being asked to pass that charges the corporation directly with that responsibility, as was the case in the 1932 and 1936 legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot accept that interpretation of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Earlier, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the minister proceeded to indicate what the differences were between the objects and powers contained in the new act and those contained in the old. I will not ask him to go over them seriatim but there is one that comes to my attention, subclause (j).


George Clyde Nowlan: Of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Of the present bill. Subclause (j) reads as follows: "acquire copyrights and trade-marks." On the other hand, subsection (j) of the old act reads as follows:
Broadcasting
Acquire copyrights in any literary, musical or artistic works, plays, songs, gramophone records, news and other matter.
Is there any reason why all of the descriptive words concerning copyrights have been dropped and the words "copyrights and trademarks" only included in the present bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: There is nothing whatever that I know that I can tell the hon. member. While I am responsible and the government is, this matter was left, according to my understanding, so that the drafting would be exactly the same with respect to all these powers as contained in the old act. If these words have been omitted, as obviously they have been, there is no explanation which I can give the hon. member. I assure him it has nothing to do with intent and it is simply a matter of draftsmanship.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure it had not anything to do with intent, but do the words "copyright and trade mark" cover all the words I have enumerated earlier in the old act?


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member, being a very good lawyer with a wide experience, would know that when you start enumerating matters and you leave one out that old rule of exclusio unis applies. This phraseology is much better because we simply have the general statement "copyright and trade marks". The old act referred to copyright and trade marks for gramophone records and so on, so I would say, with all due respect, this is probably better draftsmanship than the other one. The hon. member knows from his legal experience that it might be argued that something that did not fall within the definition of gramophone records could be excluded.


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with (m), is there any significance in the fact that under the new bill one of the powers given is to secure broadcasting stations, either by lease or otherwise, whereas under the old act it was to acquire private stations. Is there a distinction to be made between private stations and broadcasting stations?


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not catch the reference.


Lionel Chevrier: It is subclause (m).


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member says that in one case it refers to private stations?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and in the other to broadcasting stations. I was asking whether there is any distinction to be made between, the two?


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Broadcasting
On clause 30-Acquisition and disposition of property.
Leon David Crestohl: This clause says that the corporation may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire real property. Would the words "otherwise acquire" include the right of expropriation, once the corporation is an agent of Her Majesty?


George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. member will look forward to the next page, clause 32, he will find spelled out there the power of expropriation, and therefore expropriation would be governed by that clause rather than by clause 30. Of course, clause 30 deals only with the acquisition of property by the C.B.C., and if it uses that property to establish a radio station or a network it would have to apply to the board of broadcast governors before doing that.


Mr. McMillan:: I should like to direct a question to the minister in connection with line 3, and ask, in the case of the leasing of real property for a period of say five years at $20,000 a year, would that be done without reference to the governor in council? Does it refer to $100,000 in one year?


George Clyde Nowlan: It means when the total
amount involved exceeds $100,000, whether it is for one year or five years, the corporation would have to recommend that expenditure to the minister and the minister to the treasury board. So long as the total amount submitted to the treasury board and to the cabinet is less than $100,000, it is all right.


William Hector McMillan: That is over the total length of time for which the lease is made?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister tell us how often, in the last financial year the corporation had to come to him and to the treasury board for an expenditure of more than $25,000?


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot say offhand but I can say, I think to the irritation of the gentlemen who are sitting within the sound of my voice, that when I returned after being away for a few days last month I found five submissions on my desk all involving expenditures of more than $25,000. I think that is above the average, but we did have those five at one time. Then, we have recommendations for leases; we have Toronto properties for which we have 24 different leases and some of the rentals for terms of a period of years, amounting to more than $25,000; we had a lease the other day for Winnipeg; we have leases in Montreal, and there are, shall we say, a

worrying number of these submissions that come in involving substantial amounts of money.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 35-Annual budgets.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like, not that I think it will do very much good, but in order to bring the bill a little more in line with what was recommended by the Fowler commission, to move:
That section 35, subsection 2, be amended by inserting the words "and current" after the word "capital" in line 15.
The clause would then read:
Within one year after the coming into force of this act and every fifth year thereafter the corporation shall submit to the minister and the Minister of Finance for submission to the governor in council a five-year capital and current program proposed by the corporation together with a forecast of the effect of the program on the corporation's operating requirements.


George Clyde Nowlan: This was a matter of policy which was decided upon by the government. It was decided that with the expenditures for the C.B.C. running to $60 million and $70 million, according to the Fowler commission, within a year or two that these moneys should be reported and passed upon by parliament. This does not mean there will be any different procedure than there has been heretofore. There will be a vote towards the operating deficit of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that has been done for some years. The treasury board has had to approve of all these matters.
We propose to carry on the same policy with respect to the current expenditures as was carried on by our predecessors throughout the years, except a year or two when the excise tax provided sufficient moneys with which to carry on all of the operating expenses of the corporation. I believe that this is an improvement, at least it is a step in the right direction over that practice which prevailed heretofore because you get this capita] budget approved by the governor in council and a forecast of the effects of that program on the corporation's operating requirements. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would, therefore, have in front of them an estimate, approved by the government of its capital program and a forecast of the effects of that on its current program, and with these two safeguards it should be relatively easy, subject to the vicissitudes of economic conditions or wars and other developments which one cannot foresee in the immediate future, for the C.B.C. to plan its program better in the future than it has been able to do in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would not expect that travesty on the history of the corporation to go unnoticed. The minister knows quite well that every royal commission and every parliamentary committee that has considered broadcasting, and has considered this question, has taken the view that it would be undesirable to have the C.B.C. financed by annual appropriations. He knows that this was emphatically stated by the Massey commission and a scheme of financing was laid down by the Massey commission, which was implemented by the previous government over the opposition of hon. gentlemen then sitting over here, to give the C.B.C. an assured budget for a period of five years.
The question also arose of whether there should be a television licence or whether some other method of financing should be found for television, and the government had sought to find some means of financing which would be automatic and which would not be under the day to day control of the treasury. It was decided, as I indicated last night on second reading, to earmark the excise tax. Mr. Abbott introduced a bill which was opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite but which was passed by this house and which gave, until about two years ago, to the C.B.C. sufficient revenue of an assured character which was not under the control of the government.
Regrettably over the last year or two, because of the relative decline in revenues from the excise tax and because of the growing cost of adequate television coverage for the country, it became necessary for the government of the day, a government of which I was a member, to make annual appropriations. But we did that as a pis aller, realizing that it was a bad way to do things but that an emergency had to be met. As I said before that was the principal reason that the Fowler commission was appointed, and the Fowler commission, in the most emphatic of all its recommendations, recommended that the C.B.C. should be independent financially of annual appropriations, and that it should have an assured income with a maximum and a minimum so that it could plan ahead and so that it would not be subject to the day to day control of the government.
I realize that it is not competent to anyone on this side of the house to make the kind of amendment that is embodied in any of the financial schemes outlined in the Fowler report. However, it seems to me that the amendment which I have suggested and which does not involve any expenditure but merely involves the preparation of a five-year current budget as well as a five-year capital budget, would at least give to parliament and to the public the C.B.C.'s idea of what its
Broadcasting
needs were for the five-year period; and to that limited extent, at any rate, it would be a slight amelioration of what is a thoroughly bad scheme. It is for that reason that I put forward the amendment, not because I think this amendment will make this a good provision but rather because I think it will make this provision slightly less objectionable.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 93.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 35 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: As to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to travesty may I say this. Despite the fact that we voted for his amendment we should like to dissociate ourselves from those remarks. But we feel that what he was trying to get at with his amendment was worth while. We should like to move that the following clause or the following phrase be inserted in clause 35, section (1) after "Minister of Finance" reading: "And in addition a further projected program for the next four years". This section (1) would then read:
(1) The minister shall annually lay before parliament a capital budget and an operating budget for the next ensuing financial year of the corporation, approved by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Finance and in addition a further projected program for the next four years.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: All those in favour of the motion-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not quite so quick, please, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur. We in this group believe that we cannot have in an organization like the C.B.C. programs operated without some long term point of view, some continuity. The Canadian broadcasting league and others, like the members of this group, would like to have seen some five-year financial program. I should like to read a paragraph contained in a press release issued by the league yesterday dealing with that question:
The league is disappointed that the bill makes the C.B.C. dependent on annual grants from parliament. The provision for a five-year capital draft program is an improvement. But it is not enough. The bill should provide a formula by which the C.B.C. would be assured of a predictable revenue for a definite period of years, thus providing a further guarantee of the C.B.C.'s independence from partisan influence.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur does not go as far as is suggested in the representations of the Canadian broadcasting league but it is a step in that direction in order to get, shall I say, the administration in the habit of projecting its

Broadcasting
program for the next four years so that those responsible for dealing with financial aspects of policy will have that in mind and possibly see the benefits, I should say, in the future, as a result of this projected program of having the financial arrangements for a longer period of years.
I am not going to take the time of the committee further but I should like the minister to express his opinion concerning our amendment and what objection he would have to including this amendment which, I am sure, even from his point of view is a most innocent one, namely the addition of the words "and in addition a further projected program for the next four years". That is not a financial program. However, it lays the basis for financial considerations for the next four years and gives some continuity toward the development of programs and the activities of the C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I have said, the general principle which the hon. gentleman has in mind in his amendment is something with which we can all sympathize and I trust that some day we will get a levelling off so that we can project expenditure. However, I should like to call the attention of hon. members to these figures which I have in front of me now. How would you project a five-year plan when, using round figures, in 1954 the C.B.C. spent $31 million; in 1955, $40 million; in 1956, $49 million; in 1957, $62 million and this year an estimated $70 million. There is an increase of over 100 per cent in five years, and it is still going on.
I suggest that in the changing conditions of the present day, with the expansion of the microwave service and the other technical developments which may come-colour television for instance is something which may come in the relatively near future-together with the expansion of the service to the north, all these things depending on the general financial situation of the country, it cannot be expected that it will be practical to establish a five-year program. I invite the committee to consider the figures which I have read, which show an increase of over 100 per cent in five years. I wonder where the expenditure will be in another five years time.


George James McIlraith: Would that not be approximately the increase that the minister forecast five years ago when he talked about the increase that would be involved because of developments in the field of electronics and television?


George Clyde Nowlan: Fowler, in taking this up never had such an increase in mind. Anyway that is one of the principal reasons

why we cannot accept an amendment of this kind which would commit us to a long term program.


Lionel Chevrier: What the minister has just explained seems to me a good reason why we should have a program projected four or five years in advance. What is asked for here is not a detailed program in so far as the financial aspects are concerned, and surely it would be possible for the broadcasting corporation to project a program four years in advance one which, though it might not be carried out in its entirety, would yet give parliament when the budget is tabled some idea of what the corporation has in mind during that period of time. It seems to us that if this were done it would be something to which the government itself could look forward. For these reasons we on this side of the committee feel we should support the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Fisher) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 94.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I mentioned earlier in connection with this question of projecting a five-year forecast that we thought it could be done without too much trouble, and the minister seemed rather sympathetic. For that reason we should like to move an amendment to clause 35, subclause 2 as follows:
That the phrase "and every fifth year thereafter" be struck out and the following be added after the word "requirements":
"This program to be extended annually in order that a five-year projection of the program and forecast shall always be before the governor in council and parliament."
This would involve nothing more than extending the forecast annually so that we might always know just what the five-year projection is, and so that there will be no build-up of suspense with regard to the C.B.C.'s planning as we move closer to the end of the fifth year of the forecast.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like the minister, who seems to be looking over this way as if in sympathy with this amendment, which is slightly different from the one moved previously, whether he would tell the house whether he has any objection to this amendment as moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and if that should be the case, what his objection might be.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have already indicated it in my reply to the previous proposed amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Fisher) negatived: Yeas, 30; nays, 94.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 36-Report to parliament.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not propose to take much of the time of the committee in argument, because the argument has been made already over and over again during the course of the discussions on this bill. But since there is another opportunity to get the sense of the committee on this matter, I move:
That clause 36 be amended by striking out the word "minister" in lines 20 and 22 and substituting therefore the words "board of broadcast governors" in both cases.
The purpose of this amendment, of course, is to carry out to some very limited degree the recommendations of the Fowler commission to bring the corporation under the direction of the board of broadcast governors and not of the government.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 94.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, while it is quite true we have a difference with the government as to the channel through which the C.B.C. shall report to parliament for reasons that have been given in debate several times today, I do want to commend the minister for placing on the corporation the obligation to prepare and provide parliament with a report on the operations of the corporation. That is something which I think should be done with respect to all crown corporations. I hope the Prime Minister will not misunderstand my remarks if I express the wish that the Minister of National Revenue would show this clause to the Prime Minister and commend it to his attention for the next time he is amending the National Capital Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the committee revert to clause 14?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 14-Non-Canadian interests.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is a little too early for the applause as yet. The committee will remember we had a discussion this afternoon on clause 14 which was stood over. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that clause 14(b) permitted a non-Canadian citizen to acquire a licence if authorized by the board within the first six years of his tenure and afterwards he could not get one and there was some question about what would happen in the case of a transfer. I have given some consideration to this and during the dinner recess I discussed it with the officers of the Department of Justice.
Broadcasting
I am perfectly happy to leave it so a nonCanadian could get one but there is an obvious flaw in the bill as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition. If the committee is prepared to accept it I should like to have moved an amendment striking out subclause (b) entirely and relettering subclause (c) to become (b). I believe that will meet the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. When the bill is amended further consideration could be given to providing for non-Canadians seeking a licence. This is the quickest and simplest way to deal with it at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say a word on the suggestion made by the minister. I understand he has not formally moved the motion yet. I am very sympathetic with what the minister was trying to do in this clause as I imagine the minister would expect me to be because a person who is lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence is a person who has come here, landed as an immigrant, with the intention of remaining here and becoming a citizen. When we say we do not like the idea of a foreigner having a licence to operate a station in Canada, that is a position I believe everyone in the committee would feel a proper one to take. But in a country of immigration like this it is in a way perhaps rather difficult to say that people who have every intention of leaving permanently their former country of residence and becoming citizens of this country should be denied for at least five years the opportunity of getting a licence. I do not think, in fact, this would be any great hardship because in circumstances of that sort it is always possible to make certain legal arrangements through partnerships and things of that sort so the licensee could probably be a Canadian citizen and the other person could become an employee for the time being. Some arrangement of that sort could be worked out so I doubt if any great hardship would be worked if this were taken out.
I suppose the minister has given consideration to the other effect it will have if he does this. It will make the new legislation more restrictive than the present Canadian Broadcasting Act because that act leaves it open to any British subject to have a licence. This will mean that in the future no one who is not a Canadian citizen can have a licence. I am not trying to create any difficulties for the government but am attempting to assist the government solve a genuine difficulty. The other point that was raised was also quite serious. If we were going to leave it in I had intended to suggest we add something like this-and this is just a suggestion

Broadcasting
-to the clause, that after the words "six years" and before the word "or" the following words be added: "But such licence shall automatically be revoked if the licensee having so resided for six years has not become a Canadian citizen."
It seemed to me that to give a licence to someone because he could not legally become a Canadian citizen and then to allow him to go on without becoming a Canadian citizen and retaining his licence would be something we would not want to have happen. As far as we are concerned I believe we would take the view that if the minister thinks this is the best thing to do for the time being we would have no objection to the amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is probably the best thing to do. I have an open mind on the question. I have been so advised by the officials tonight, having in mind that we could carefully consider this when the committee meets during the next session of parliament. If it meets with the general approval of this committee I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move an amendment to this clause which will result in taking out subclause (b) and relettering (c) to become (b).


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That section 14 be amended by deleting clause (b) and that clause (c) be relettered as clause (b).
Amendment (Mrs. Fairclough) agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Douglas Mason Fisher: One question; the minister said that either on his estimates or before the end of this debate he might be able to give us some indication whether paragraph (6) of clause 3 precludes the present members of the C.B.C. board of governors from becoming members of the board of broadcast governors. Is he in a position to tell us that now?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am advised it is not possible because one comes into operation and the other goes out of operation, and therefore you cannot be a member of both boards at the same time.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


George James McIlraith: Next sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave, now.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now?


George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a very few observations I should like to make before the bill passes if the minister does not wish to speak.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I think the minister has spoken enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to trespass on the time of the house very long but I was very grateful to the minister for establishing a precedent in the committee, a precedent which I am going to try to follow by keeping within the rules, if I can, as Your Honour interprets them.
The minister quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press, and he commended an editorial to us on this side of the house. I would like to make as my own views, certain views, which are expressed in an editorial of the Ottawa Journal today. I feel I would be saving the time of the house by reading the editorial instead of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. gentlemen would rather have me put it in my own words I would be glad to do so, but I am afraid I would not be nearly as concise as the editor of the Ottawa Journal.


George Clyde Nowlan: Read it, by all means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does seem to me that perhaps many of the hon. members on the other side of the house would rather hear the editor of the Ottawa Journal than hear me. That is generally the view they take, at any rate.


Mr. Grafftey:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the editorial relates to the matter now before the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to read this editorial?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Cameron Pallett: Read it quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been suggested by some of the newer members of the house that I should read this editorial quickly. I have a long acquaintance with, and great respect for, the editors of the Ottawa Journal and they do not write to be read quickly; they write to be read at leisure, with the full enjoyment of their sentiments and I would not wish to do less than justice, in so far as it is possible for me at all, to the sentiments expressed in this editorial.
The editorial is entitled:
C.B.C. and Parliament; Too Fast, Too Uncertain. Mr. Nowlan, as the responsible minister-

That, of course, is not quite correct. I do not mean to suggest that he is not a responsible minister, but in this context I always described the relationship of the minister and his connection with the C.B.C. as a drain pipe.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, unanimous consent was given to the reading of this editorial so that it would shut the hon. member up. Since he is going to interpolate all the way through, I would suggest that he make his speech and throw the editorial away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister is right, sir, and I will refrain from any interpolations. I continue with the editorial:
Mr. Nowlan, as the responsible minister, says that when the broadcasting act is passed "the C.B.C. will find itself in a stronger position than ever before". Why? Because, he says, it will be relieved of the friction-causing duty of regulation of private stations which will be taken over by the new board of broadcasting governors.
But, says Mr. Pearson, the new legislation will weaken the position of the C.B.C. and could lead to two systems of broadcasting, one private and one public, with the C.B.C. given no special position and presenting the danger that the B.B.G. might give more attention to private broadcasters than to the national system.
Mr. Nowlan speaks of the B.B.G. as "the overriding agency which is going to lay down the regulations and to enforce them". This sounds like no milk-and-water board of amiable gentlemen prepared to let the C.B.C. do pretty well as it likes. It sounds like a board of extensive power, competent to interfere with minute details of C.B.C. operations.
Mr. Pearson fears, and we think with reason, that the 15-man board of broadcast governors and the 11-man board of C.B.C. directors will get in each other's way to the detriment of the national service.
None will doubt the good intentions of the government-
This is a terrible temptation!
None will doubt the good intentions of the government or even take lightly Mr. Nowlan's contention that a fundamental problem-the allocation of authority over broadcasting-has been solved. But in spite of the minister's reassurances, the text of the bill leaves unanswered the question whether the C.B.C. is to have authority and freedom to maintain a good national service.
The time for further discussion is short. But if the legislation is passed without a full answer to that question parliament-and that means all parties-will not have done its job.
Well, sir, we have not had that answer. We on this side of the house do not want this bill to pass and it is our intention to vote against third reading.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to explain that we are going to vote for the bill for reasons we have indicated earlier. I may sum this up in essence by saying that we feel matters cannot be further delayed. We accept the assurance of
Broadcasting
the minister that a committee of the house at the next session will deal with a review of the act and have some sort of meeting or liaison with the board of broadcast governors. We support the legislation. Some of our misgivings have been allayed by the candid way in which the minister spoke and met some of our amendments suggesting changes with sympathy. We are going to be optimistic about the eventual outcome of this bill.
I want to enter, if I may, a few remarks by a Mr. Finlay MacDonald who was once general manager of the Canadian association of radio and television broadcasters. This is from an article entitled:
Will The Conservatives "Bell" the C.B.C.?
This article appeared in the Atlantic Advocate of January, 1958. The particular paragraph in this article that interests me has little or nothing to do with the bill but it indicates the hopes that we have:
It is now most interesting to observe the change in a group of men going from opposition to government. The fire of their criticism has been replaced by the studied, defensive consideration of their replies. Where before, they represented the grievances of the individual citizen, they must now be responsive to those issues of interest to the larger segments. What else would we expect?
I would say that we expect that the very best intentions which have been expressed by the minister will come to pass and that our dealings with the board of broadcast governors next session when they come before the select committee will be harmonious. I also trust that we will discover that everything has turned out for the best under this not quite the best of all possible bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Webster) intend to vote?


Mr. Webster:: Yes, I was sitting in the wrong seat.


Mr. Speaker:: With the yeas or nays?


Allan Ross Webster: I voted for the motion.
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have had a rather hectic day today. Perhaps hon. members would wish to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: The business for tomorrow will be consideration of the estimates of the following departments. First we shall take the Department of National Revenue-


An hon. Member:: No rest for the minister.


Howard Charles Green: He has done so well today, we are going to put him up to bat tomorrow. Then we shall take the departments of citizenship and immigration, trade and commerce, post office and transport.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader whether that will be the order for Thursday, Friday and Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: No. I am afraid I cannot
give the hon. member that information this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that, pursuant to the order made this morning, the activities of the Clerk and of the translation department under the Secretary of State have been such that sessional paper 214, the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan, is available in French.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 27, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.