1964-10-27

Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago
the government announced its intention to establish a committee to study election expenditures. This is a complex problem which affects the very basis of our democratic system. Moreover, it has become particularly important these last few years due to the increase of communication media, especially since the advent of television. It is now essential to take appropriate action so as to restrict and control election expenditures.
{Text]
Before proposing such measures, however, the government has decided to ask a small group of men with practical experience and expert knowledge to make a study of the problem of rising election expenses and make recommendations in the light of our own Canadian requirements and of the experience in other countries. The advisory committee will "inquire into and report upon the desirable and practical measures to limit and control federal election expenditures". These terms of reference are general, and we expect that the committee will give them a broad interpretation.
The members of the committee will be Mr. Frangois Nobert, Three Rivers, president; Hon. M. J. Coldwell, P.C., Ottawa; Mr. Gordon Dryden, Toronto; Mr. Arthur R. Smith, Calgary and Professor Norman M. Ward, Saskatoon.
We are very grateful to all these gentlemen for their willingness to serve on the committee. When their report is completed it will, of course, be made public. It is the first time in our country that a study of this kind has been undertaken and that a government has declared its intention to take effective steps to limit election expenditures. As a result of those steps we hope that our political
life will be improved and will reflect more faithfully our democratic ideals.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I had no advance knowledge that this announcement would be made; therefore I shall not go into any detail, except to say the object is one that will commend itself not only to members of the house and defeated candidates but also to the public as a whole. Certainly the trend in recent years, resulting from television and radio and other necessary media of information, has brought about such an increase in constituency and election expenditures that it renders it very difficult for an average Canadian to take his part in public life.
When I mention expenditures I think of an election in Montreal, I believe it was in 1925 or 1926 in one of the constituencies in your city, sir, when the expenditures set out in the election returns by the two candidates involved were between $80,000 and $90,000 each. That was before the days of radio and television. All were legitimate expenditures; none the less the story is indicative of a great danger that democracy faces, namely that parliament shall be a place only for those who are able to supply the necessary funds. This is a particular detriment to young men and women desiring to take their part in public life.
So far as the personnel of the committee is concerned I commend the minister. I think all of them, both individually and collectively, are recognized by Canadians as a whole as having the necessary capacity and ability to face this difficult problem.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Secretary of State and the government for the step just announced. It seems to me this is the very heart of the whole question of democratic government. If we come to the day when elections can be bought and can be won by parties which have large campaign funds, then we will have lost a very vital element in our democracy. We all know that elections cost a great deal more than they used to, particularly if you have to pay for truth squads and pigeons-

Curtailment of Election Expenses


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and comic books. An investigation of the whole question of election expenses, of what measures can be taken to curtail them, and I hope also disclosure of the sources of campaign funds, would be an extremely useful thing if we are to develop democratic government in this country.
The government has taken the first step toward what we ought to have in Canada, a democratic system in which members will be elected to parliament on the basis of their merit and not on the basis of the gimmicks they can afford at election time.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party join in welcoming the announcement that has been made by the Secretary of State. We all know that for a considerable length of time efforts have been made to spur action in this regard. We only hope the deliberations and studies of the committee will be conducted with dispatch so that before long we will have concrete suggestions and	recommendations
placed before the house.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened carefully to the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) to the effect that a committee will be formed to study the possibilities of decreasing election expenditures as much as possible.
If the work of this committee is directed with a view to allowing less wealthy candidates the opportunity to conduct an election campaign, then it will certainly be effective and will truly recognize the democratic principles which must prevail in a country like Canada.
Too often in the past we have deplored abuses during elections, and particularly during the last general election.
This study, Mr. Speaker, will not prevent the finance barons from supplying considerable amounts of money to the party in power and also to the official opposition party, which has always been done in the past. In many cases those large amounts have prevented able and serious persons from running, because they could not meet the extravagant expenditures of the major political parties of this country.
When some persons use, for instance, social legislation, family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for needy mothers, pensions for invalids, crippled and blind persons, under


the pretext that those social security measures were granted to them by the party in power, then they lie deliberately and shamelessly to the people of Canada, and the same applies as concerns agricultural subsidies.
Parliament as a whole, and not just a particular party, is responsible for social security legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we accept the statement of the Secretary of State when he tells us that the chairman of the committee concerned is a well-known Liberal of the province of Quebec, and we hope that this study will enable those who wish to run for office to face up to the candidates who benefit from considerable amounts supplied by barons of finance.


An hon. Member:: The sharks.


David Réal Caouette: The sharks.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday I promised the hon. member for Regina City that I would make available to this house a representative copy of replies I have sent to representations received from the trucking industry regarding Bill C-126. With the permission of the house I would now table a copy of a letter to the Manitoba trucking association dated October 23.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wonder whether that copy could be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that this letter should be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter above referred to, see Appendix.]



INSTRUCTIONS TO RETURNING OFFICERS RESPECTING REVISION OF VOTERS LISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask him whether there is any significance in the fact that the chief electoral officer has sent written instructions to the returning officers asking them to revise the lists by December 15, at which time there would be a distribution of election material.

Had the minister any knowledge of this in advance; and what is the interpretation, if any, to be placed on these unusual circumstances in view of the fact that redistribution has not been proceeded with?


Maurice Lamontagne: The chief electoral officer did not communicate with me before issuing these instructions.


John George Diefenbaker: He must be a mind reader.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to an article which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail by Hugh Munro entitled "Industry Gropes for Answers in Foggy Ottawa Plan on Freer Auto Trade". This article says negotiations are going on between the Canadian and United States governments regarding freer trade in cars and parts. It says that at the present time the industry is suffering from uncertainty because of its inability to get a clear statement from the government. I want to ask the minister whether it is his intention to make a clear statement in the house on this matter in the near future.
Hon. V/alter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, certainly when the government has anything specific and clear that should be announced, it will be announced in the house. I suggest to my hon. friend that I think the article to which he referred is somewhat exaggerated, because the automobile industry in Canada has never been so prosperous and there has never been so much employment in that industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do, of course, with whether or not the industry is prosperous. I want to ask the minister specifically are the Canadian and United States governments negotiating to have freer access to the Canadian and United States markets for automobiles and parts? Does the minister intend to make any statement to the house regarding this matter? Third, does the minister intend at any time to introduce with such legislation, if it comes, some type of trade adjustment legislation that will proinquiries of the Ministry tect both the workers and management against any dislocations which may take place?


Mr. Gordon:: As has been stated in the house on other occasions, officials of the Canadian and U.S. governments have been discussing possible extenuations or changes in the present plan in case they are needed. This has been done at the official level and on an informal basis and does not represent negotiations, in any formal sense, between the Canadian and U.S. governments. If, as and when there are any changes in policy, they will of course be announced in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether at the same time any consideration will be given to introducing some type of trade adjustment legislation, which has been suggested a number of times by the hon. member for Dan-forth, to protect both labour and management against the adverse effects of the dislocation which might take place if such a policy were introduced?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It seems to me there are a whole set of hypothetical conjectures in that question, Mr. Speaker. However, it is my understanding that this is a subject which the Minister of Labour has under consideration; in fact I think he is having a meeting on it this afternoon.



REMOVAL OF TAX ON MACHINERY OF PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as the cost of food producing machinery to United States producers is some 41 per cent lower than the cost of such machinery in Canada, thereby reflecting directly on the cost of living in Canada, would the minister consider removing the tax on production machinery?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I seem to have dealt with this question on several occasions, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Will his department
9460	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry take appropriate steps to ensure that the hundreds of guards who are working at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary will be given employment in the other institutions to be built?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, no guard will lose his job following the steps we intend to take to improve our penal system.
One of the major problems remaining is to find enough guards who will accept to follow, in due time, the courses of the college set up for that purpose.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What steps will be taken to ensure that the economy of the town of St. Vincent de Paul, which is entirely dependant upon the penitentiary, will not be too affected? Will there be new buildings in St. Vincent de Paul to prevent chaos?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the maximum security institution will be transferred from St. Vincent de Paul to Ste. Anne des Plaines. However, a unit in St. Vincent de Paul will look after the selection and distribution of inmates among the various institutions. Administration offices will also be established there and other buildings as well.
I should tell the hon. member who is concerned, and rightly so perhaps, about the future of people now working at St. Vincent de Paul that this aspect of the matter was considered during the study of the project and one of my main preoccupations will be to see that those changes in the system do not affect the town of St. Vincent de Paul.
Much as I would have liked to meet the mayor and the aldermen, I found it impossible to do so. Nevertheless, the hon. member can rest assured that here is one factor to which the department will give its utmost consideration.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he report on the conditions he found yesterday during his visit and tell us more particularly if the conditions mentioned on the television program "This Hour Has Seven Days" are based on facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Danforth.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister was about to answer my question.


Guy Favreau: Of course, I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, of giving a detailed answer to that question apart from tabling a return. Therefore, perhaps my hon. friend could put his question on the order paper and I will endeavour to give as complete an answer as possible.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary question for the minister. Is the minister in a position to confirm to the house that a decision has been made to set up a parliamentary committee to look into the whole matter of penal reform and penology in Canada and, if so, could he give the house the nature of the committee and its terms of reference?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said that it was my intention to recommend to the government the setting up of two committees. I shall make my recommendation presently, and as soon as the cabinet has taken a definite stand on each of the two measures concerned I shall report to this house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: During his visits, did the minister see prisoner Gaston Nicolas who was the subject of a telecast report Sunday night?


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Now that he has decided that St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary should be evacuated within the next two years and prisoners transferred to other institutions, will he give the necessary instructions to build a medium security penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot, as had been decided by the Conservative administration, a decision revoked by his predecessor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is this a question or a statement? I suggest the hon. member put this on the order paper.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with your ruling on this. I think it is a very urgent matter, and I am only taking the report and the statement of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I know the Grits on the other side do not like to hear this, but the penitentiaries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If each hon. member in turn were to ask about a penitentiary, if there was one, in his constituency we would never get on with the business before the house.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me but the question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Justice had to do with the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
I could perhaps take this opportunity to ask him whether there is any basis to the rumour that he wants to relinquish his position as leader of the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, any decision to that effect will be announced before long.



PROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW WOMEN'S PRISON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. On October 13, while he was absent from the house on business, I asked his parliamentary secretary whether any decision had been arrived at by the government in respect of the women's prison now located at Kingston. I wanted to know whether a decision had been reached to leave it in its present location or whether a decision had been reached to move it elsewhere. Because of the tremendous interest in this matter, can the minister advise the house in this regard?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been arrived at yet. The position of the matter will be discussed in the course of consideration of my estimates, but no decision has been arrived at yet.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the subject of the moving of this prison could be discussed by the parliamentary committee on prison reform which the minister is setting up.


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the two committees I have in mind, if my suggestion is accepted, will be vested with the study of penal reform and our correctional system as a carryover from the conclusions and the point reached at the time of the Fau-teux report.
Mt. Fairweather: In other words, no decision will be made to move the prison until
Inquiries of the Ministry the report of the committee has been received. Is that correct?


Guy Favreau: I thought my hon. friend was referring to the matter of penal reform and correction generally and in principle. As far as the other matter is concerned, I am in a position to state that it is not my intention to recommend a firm decision with regard to the women's penitentiary until such time as the parliamentary committee to be set up has been seized of the question.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the more or less piecemeal pronouncements that are being made here, at Niagara Falls and at St. Vincent de Paul, I wonder whether the minister would be kind enough to package all these developments in one statement which he might make on motions at some appropriate time within the next day or two so we can have a look at the whole picture.


Guy Favreau: I think the proper time to do this will be when my estimates come before the house-


Mr. Woolliams:: When are you going to bring them down?


Guy Favreau: -and also when either of the two committees to which I have just referred is constituted by the government.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when his estimates will be before the house?


Mr. Pearson:: When are we going to get interim supply?


Guy Favreau: I am not in a position to say when my estimates will come up, but they should surely come up in the relatively early future.


Frank Howard: Will you consult with the government house leader about that?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if the setting up of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada is still considered by the government as an urgent matter and if we

Inquiries of the Ministry can expect the introduction and adoption ol a bill to that effect during the present session?


Mr. Rondeau:: An election is coming, he will promise it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with this question two or three times.



NOTICE TO BANKS OF AMENDMENTS TO FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders ot the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since the house gave approval to amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act on September 15 and royal assent was given the following day, can the minister tell the house why the banks have not been informed of this and when we can expect them to be informed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is based on a speech delivered yesterday on her behalf in which it was stated that her department is making a study of the report of the royal commission on health services and hopes to have recommendations to place before the provinces by next spring. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether the review includes a study of the imminent and critical doctor shortage in Canada, and can we expect recommendations to the provinces in this regard before or by next spring?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question, yes; and with respect to the second part, yes.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: 
Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



REPORTED COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF FRENCH NETWORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Does he intend to order the holding of an inquiry so as to check whether the C.B.C. is loaded with communist sympathizers, as was asserted by the secretary of the province of Quebec, Mr. Bona Arsenault?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, and I answered it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister inform the house about the herring fishermen's strike on the west coast, and what he is doing to help solve the problem?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram this morning advising me of the strike of herring fishermen on the west coast, but I wish to advise the hon. member that such problems do not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the new resolution concerning the Canada pension plan

is, I am happy to note, on the notice paper and will be on the order paper tomorrow, and in view of the fact that under our new standing orders debate on a resolution preceding a money bill can take only one day, will the government arrange for the pension plan resolution to be debated at an early date so the bill can be introduced and we can thus have time to study this very important measure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible to debate this resolution under the new rules at a very early date.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, based on remarks that were delivered for him in Toronto a few days ago. Does the proposed new policy announced in those remarks regarding direct grants to new industries established for the production of new products mean the adoption of the recommendations contained in Professor Wilson's report prepared for the four Atlantic premiers; and will the government be announcing the adoption of the recommendations of this report, as requested by Premier Stanfield?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, study is still being given to Professor Wilson's report, and until such time as the study is complete I would hesitate to give any forecast of what might happen.



REQUEST FOR FURTHER STATEMENT ON U.K. IMPORT SURCHARGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he add anything today to the interpretation he gave yesterday of the likely effect of the new British 15 per cent trade levy, particularly as it may affect British Columbia pulp, sawn lumber and aluminum, with regard to which some concern is being felt?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much to add to what I said yesterday, except to say that upon further examination the impact is probably going to be a little less than 20220-599
Inquiries of the Ministry I indicated yesterday. As far as lumber is concerned, our understanding is that raw lumber itself is exempt from the charge, but we are not clear whether any other forms of lumber are exempt. It is our understanding, of course, that products such as plywood are subject to the charge.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED DELAY IN PAYMENT OF CLAIMS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house why the unemployment insurance commission is delaying up to eight weeks in paying cheques that are due to some of the unemployed at the moment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will give me some specific instances I will be glad to look into what seems to be an excessive delay.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in a position to tell the house when the legislation concerning the Indian claims commission will be brought before the house.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, within a few days I will have a meeting with the officers of my department and then we will be in a position to determine changes in the legislation as all the representations from the Indians have been received and considered. We have now reached the stage of amendments to the bill, and the legislation will again be submitted to the house shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
COLUMBIA RIVER-ABSENCE OF NATIONAL FLAGS AT SIGNING OF TREATY On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Cify):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my affable friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He looks a little serious today. I

Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask him why the officials of his department considered it improper to drape the present official distinctive flag of Canada, the red ensign, and the flag of the United States of America as a backdrop to the ceremonial signing of the Columbia river treaty which took place in the railway committee room, which he signed and which the ambassador of the United States signed. Why was it considered improper to display the Canadian red ensign and the flag of the United States on this occasion?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend is somewhat late in posing this important question. I can only say that if there had been any deliberate effort to do what my hon. friend alleges, then of course it would have been a wrong course to follow. I am sure I have never heard of any such suggestion. It would have been appropriate, of course, for this to have been done particularly because of the accomplishment represented by the ratification of that treaty.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is it a fact that a female letter carrier has recently been added to the staff of the Victoria post office, and is this indicative of a new employment policy in the Post Office Department?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this is a pressing question, but it should be put on the order paper.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION-REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE STAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Postmaster General. I should like to ask him whether he has considered issuing a stamp to honour the meeting of the interparliamentary union which will be held in Canada in 1965.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Posimasler General):: Yes, serious consideration is being given to that suggestion. I may supplement that answer by saying that I think I have already written to the Speaker on the subject giving him an assurance, and that is almost as good as a promise.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I hope I can get the same kind of assurance from the Prime Minister as that just given by the Postmaster General. In view of press reports that the Prime Minister stated today that a study is to be made of the possibility of improving the pensions of retired civil servants, can the Prime Minister say if that study will include the possibility of legislation being introduced at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: What I said to the delegation of superannuated civil servants, whom we were very glad to receive this morning and with whom we had a very interesting exchange of views, was that we would study their brief very carefully and very sympathetically, and I would be communicating with them within a fortnight.


George Louis Chatterton: Would such a decision be delayed until after the Canada pension plan has been dealt with, as the Prime Minister at one time indicated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was the contention of the delegation that these two things were not related.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84:
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said' main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;

(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the house rose, last night, I said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) likes to refer to the prosperity we are supposed to have in Canada at the present time. As late as this afternoon, he mentioned the prosperity of the automobile industry in Canada. It seems to have become typical of the Minister of Finance to talk about the present prosperity of the Canadian economy.
However, there is one thing he overlooks. He does not tell us for whom there is prosperity in Canada at the present time. There is probably prosperity for tax collectors and gatherers. Indeed, that field is in fact prosperous. Collections are much larger than before. Taxes have gone up and so, the coffers of the government are better lined than ever. [Text]


The Chairman:: Order. May I bring to the attention of members of the committee the fact that it is rather noisy. In fairness to hon. members who are trying to listen to the speech may I suggest that conversation should be carried on sotto voce.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that it is a little noisy on the Liberal side but that is because the Liberals are disappointed at the announcement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) to the effect that election expenditures would be cut down in the future. Since they never succeeded in getting elected without a healthy electoral fund, they are looking for new means of stealing elections now that their electoral fund has been cut.
In fact, they are holding a caucus to find how they could steal elections, now that they no longer have a fat electoral fund. And the "Prosper" hon. member for Mercier knows 20220-599J
Interim Supply
something about it, since his electoral fund has always beeen one of the most prosperous in Canada. If he had not had a healthy electoral fund in the past, I think he would have never been elected to this parliament.
Liberal members are now discussing how they could steal elections without an electoral fund.
In any event, we see that the truth hurts. It has offended some and it will be the subject of conversation among Liberals for some time, because they know that in future they will not be able to win an election so easily, if election expenditures are reduced, because they always had to pay large amounts to their organizers and to their poll representatives, while the Creditistes were able to do so by themselves-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Lapointe has been speaking for a few minutes on a subject which appears to have no relation whatever with the subject under consideration, and I would invite him to come back to our discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that during a debate on interim supply it has always been customary for the chairman to leave the greatest freedom to the members. As a feeling of revolt and fear seems to prevail today among Liberal members, this surely constitutes a matter of current interest.
I was saying that prosperity, to which the Minister of Finance refers so often, is a tax collector's prosperity; it is a national revenue department prosperity.
But look at the people, look at the unemployed, the farmer, the labourer, the small businessman, the small manufacturer. They are not prosperous. Prosperity is found among tax collectors, not among the people.
The surplus of which the Minister of Finance boasts at the present time does not imply a period of prosperity but a period of tax increases.
I said yesterday that unemployment statistics indicate a momentary improvement only because they are inaccurate. Nowadays, for instance, only those who get unemployment insurance benefits are considered as unemployed. However, there are just as many Canadians who are no longer entitled to such benefits, but who are covered by social insurance. Those people are still unemployed, but they are not classified as such because they do not draw unemployment insurance benefits.

Interim Supply
The situation is the same as in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963. The lot of the big fellows is improving but that of the little man is getting worse all the time.
What is the government doing in the circumstances? What legislation has this parliament passed to remedy Canada's present economic conditions?
According to orders of the day, 78 government orders have been put on the order paper during this session.
If you refer to order paper No. 177 for Tuesday, October 27, 1964, you will see that 52 of those government orders have been adopted by parliament. Among those 52, 14 were simply referred to a committee; therefore, nothing was solved, since those questions were referred to a committee for study.
There remain 38 orders, five of which dealt with supply or the estimates. In other words, this meant a two day debate which was nothing more than chatter, followed by a non-confidence motion at the end of those two days.
There remain 33. Five were also adopted on motions of approval of special measures which did not benefit the Canadian people. Among those five motions respecting special measures, there was the motion approving the sending of peace troops to Cyprus, a motion amending the constitution, that is, an address sent to the British parliament requesting the right to amend our constitution respecting old age pensions. There was also an address to the Queen of England after her trip to Canada.
All these motions concerning special bills have contributed absolutely nothing to the improvement of the economic situation in Canada.
So, we are left with 28 orders on the order paper which have been adopted by parliament.
Out of that number there were eight bills ordinarily called supply bills, four for interim supply and four for the supplementary estimates. The Canadian people did not get anything out of those either.
So we now have 20 bills which have been adopted by parliament. Out of that number, six were private bills and of minor importance from which the Canadian people did not get anything either. I might mention, for instance, the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act-simply to increase the number of judges-the Ste Foy-St. Nicolas Bridge Act and the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission Act.
[Mr. Grfegoire.l
Six such bills of very limited, special and secondary interest have been passed, with the result that there still remain but 14 bills, passed by parliament, which might have been of public interest.
Of those 14, three were based on budget resolutions brought forward when the Minister of Finance introduced his last budget. The sole purpose of those three bills was to increase taxes or change custom duties. Here again, the Canadian people did not get anything.
There are only 11 bills left which were passed by parliament, including five which merely served to amend other acts. One of them amended the National Defence Act, another the National Housing Act. Improvements brought to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could have been of benefit to the Canadian people if such advantages had not been completely nullified by the 11 per cent increase in the sales tax on building materials.
Of the six bills remaining, three concern agriculture and one the fishing zones. The only purpose of the three bills on agriculture was to run the Canadian people farther into debt: the first was to raise the amount of farm credit loans, the second to raise the amount of farm improvement loans and the third to extend credit to farm machinery syndicates.
Strangely enough, not one of those bills on agriculture is suitable to agriculture in eastern Canada.
There remains only two other bills passed by parliament this year; the first concerns a $10 family allowance to children aged 16 to 18 years, which will definitely not apply in the province of Quebec, since they are already getting it; the other, Bill No. C-lll, concerns $1,000 loans to students, which will not apply to the province of Quebec either.
There you have the legislative program put through by this government to date. Result: nil.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that the surplus now showing on government books results from taxes and not from the legislative program of the government.
The government did not legislate in the right direction. It was aiming at balancing a budget which had shown a deficit for the past eight or ten years. It legislated in the interest of the big financial interests of the country, not in the interest of the people.
But when England needs help to maintain the pound at its current level, then, the matter is urgent. There is no need to pass legisla-

tion. The Bank of Canada, without even explaining the circumstances to parliament or to the Canadian people, makes a low interest loan to the Bank of England.
When the British economy had to be saved, legislation was not even passed. The Bank of Canada did it without any act, without even consulting parliament, and it lent money practically free of interest to the Bank of England.
Since such a thing is possible to save the economic interests of England, why does the Bank of Canada not act in the same way in order to help the Canadian citizen, the individual, the small businessman? How can the Bank of Canada do that in order to help England, but cannot do the same thing to help our municipalities, school boards and provincial governments?
When the defence of big financial interests of English or international capitalists is involved, then there is no need for legislation. The Bank of Canada takes direct action, as it did less than three weeks ago, by lending tens of millions of dollars to England. But when the economic interests of the Canadian people are involved, there is nothing doing. As suggested by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), no legislation is introduced or our time is spent on passing legislation only to push people into debt, instead of pulling them out of the debt situation in which they are at the present time.
The Bank of Canada can act in the absence of legislation in order to save England's economy. Why could it not act now to save the economy of the Canadian people? Emergency measures are needed to save the Canadian economy at this time.


An hon. Member:: Demagogue.


Gilles Grégoire: Liberal members call that demagogy. One is asleep, the other one is reading his paper and there is another one who never did and never will understand anything. That is the contribution of certain Liberal members.
There was an emergency measure taken by the Bank of Canada to assist England and, in the same way, emergency measures must be applied in our country. Among those emergency measures, I should like to name four.
First, an emergency measure concerning every Canadian citizen. It involves three pieces of social security legislation to assist the individual where most needed.
The first step towards helping the individual would be to increase family allowances. The minister tells us that he has a
Interim Supply
surplus of $395 million. He should increase family allowances in order to give parents of large families, which number five, seven, eight and even ten children, the opportunity to send them to school, give them a decent and honourable life, and provide clothing, food and shelter for them during their studies. We should raise family allowances to $10, $18, or $20 per month in order that those children might attend school-not only primary school, but also secondary school or even university. It is the duty of the government to raise family allowances for all the young people of our country, so that everyone may take advantage of our educational facilities.
A second measure would involve old age pensions. Look at what is going on in the factories today. Come and see for yourselves what is taking place in the big factories in my riding, such as the Aluminum Company in Arvida and Price Brothers in Kenogami and Jonquiere. You will see that the worker is retired at 65 years of age. While he is used to a decent salary, he must, at age 65 be retired on a pension that is not enough for him to live on.
As industry and factory workers retire at 65, it seems to me that the government should lower to 65 the age for old age pensions, instead of keeping it at 70. The monthly pension of $75 should be paid to all Canadian citizens 65 years of age, because nowadays factory workers are increasingly being retired at that age and are deprived of their salary, not at 70 but at 65 years of age.
The third point concerns social security. Today we notice that one of the greatest problems faced by the individual and the big family-I know that there is hospital insurance to pay for a public ward-comes from doctors' and anaesthetists' bills, and the price of medicine and operations. The government should pass legislation as quickly as possible with a view to organizing a system of health dividend, in the form of dividend coupons which would be sent to all family heads and to all single people over 21 years of age. Each head of a family and each single person could use these dividend coupons to subscribe to a medical care program with an insurance company of his choice, whether profit-making or not.
Private insurance companies in Canada are in a position to offer health insurance plans, and this would be an economy for the government. A greater number of Canadian citizens would be insured through this health dividend which would only be valid with a Canadian company.

Interim Supply
Then the Canadian citizen would be in a position to pay his expenses not only for hospitalization in a public ward but also for a private room, when necessary, as well as the fees of physicians, surgeons, anaethetists and expenses for drugs, house calls and so on.
Those three measures, that is family allowances, old age pensions and health dividends would directly help the individual to live better under our present system.
The first point, the first piece of urgent legislation which should be enacted in Canada is a social security bill concerning family allowances, old age pensions at the age of 65 and a universal health dividend.
Second-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I will be through in four minutes. I have been interrupted a few times at the beginning of my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course, the hon. member can continue if he has the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the hon. member for Lapointe have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: I will need only three or four minutes to conclude my speech. In view of the delay you imposed upon me at the beginning and-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member has already had an additional minute, in any case, but I should like to ask the committee once again if the hon. member for Lapointe has its unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Permission granted.


Gilles Grégoire: Here then, Mr. Chairman, is the second measure, and I shall refer to it very briefly.
It would be to provide work for each and every Canadian citizen. There are too many unemployed at the present time in our country, whether or not they are included in the statistics. By carrying out a vast program of public works, improving our public buildings, our roads, our bridges, building schools and universities and also looking after urban renewal, we should be able, by means of such a vast program of public works, to provide jobs for all our Canadian citizens.

The third emergency measure essential to Canada is to find the solution to the problem of agriculture in eastern Canada. At the present time, agriculture in eastern Canada is in complete stagnation. Its reactivation would require emergency measures, and to these we would be ready to contribute. By so doing, we could save the farmer in eastern Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec, from ruination and bankruptcy.
The fourth emergency measure would be to reduce taxes so that the Canadian government would not take away from the Canadian citizen the salary he earns, as is done through taxes at the present time.
Let the government bring forward those four urgent measures and then, we are convinced, prosperity will follow, not a false or artificial prosperity that benefits tax collectors but prosperity for each and every Canadian citizen. It is the responsibility of all members of this house to promote the prosperity of all Canadian citizens and not only that of tax collectors.


Milton L. Klein: I should like to discuss for the next few moments the program which was broadcast on Sunday last in the series "This Hour Has Seven Days". I should like to read a statement made by the narrator, John Drainie, prior to the interview with George Rockwell on this program. It reads as follows:
In the 48 hours since we announced that George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American nazi party would appear on this program tonight-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: What is the matter, Mr. Gregoire, you are not able to make Mr. Boulanger angry any more?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, would you kindly call to order the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). He is interrupting his colleague; if he was the least bit polite, he would let him talk.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) has the floor.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We want to hear the gentleman who has the floor, but the hon. member for Mercier talks too loud and in such a way as to interrupt his colleague. If the hon.

member for Mercier wants the floor, why does he not rise?


Mr. Boulanger:: The leader of tomorrow.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I call the hon. members to order so that the hon. member for Cartier can pursue his remarks?


Gilles Grégoire: He will be able to carry on if the other one holds his tongue.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I suggest these children
should leave the house.


Prosper Boulanger: Yes, let him continue his speech.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I repeat my suggestion that these boys leave the chamber.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you see the hon. member for Mercier is always talking.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Prosper Boulanger: He is really sick. At his age.


Gilles Grégoire: He is still continuing, Mr. Chairman.


Milton L. Klein: The statement continued-perhaps I had better begin again.
In the 48 hours since we announced that George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American nazi party, would appear on our program tonight the C.B.C. has received many phone calls demanding that he be withdrawn. The callers, some of them members of an organized group, argue that it is dangerous to let Mr. Rockwell advocate on t.v. the extermination of Jews since he might ignite the fires of anti-Semitism and enlist supporters to his cause. We disagree. We believe that Canadians will not take up arms against Jews, negroes or any other minority groups because Mr. Rockwell asks them to. We believe that the best way to deal with extremists is to expose them, not to pretend that they don't exist. We believe that Canadians, given adequate exposure to Mr. Rockwell, are competent to judge him for themselves.
These are the facts: there has been a significant growth in the power and influence of the far right in the past five years. The American nazi party claims a quarter of a million members; its work is well financed. Its message of hate is carried daily by a string of radio stations owned by a Texas millionnaire. Its literature is dispensed through secret postal boxes, and when one box is closed down another opens up.
Last week, in Texas, three men were arrested for violation of the federal firearms laws, for keeping a cache of weapons. They also had nazi flags and pictures of Hitler. The cache was discovered shortly before a visit to Texas by President Johnson.
Interim Supply
In France, yesterday, Mrs. Collin Jordan, wife of the British nazi party leader, was charged in a Paris court with plotting against the French state. And in Canada Jews and others were still receiving hate literature although the government announced that post office box II-two or eleven-had been closed down.
Once before in another nation, now our ally, a man with views like Rockwell came to power unnoticed by forces that might have stopped him. By the time his nation was aware of the threat he posed, it was too late for he was already in firm control and could not be stopped.
We don't suggest that George Lincoln Rockwell is on his way to power, but we are convinced that to ignore his very real existence will not reduce the threat he presents and may in fact assist him.
What you will see now is not pleasant viewing.
He was speaking, of course, of the program:
Some of you will be frightened by it, all of you will be disturbed by it; but we believe that it must be shown; that only by exposing extremism in all its monstrosity can citizens be made aware of its dangers and society armed to deal with him.
This is the statement that preceded the television program in which Rockwell was pictured as the commander of the American nazi party, with a huge flag bearing the swastika, and bordered by some 20 or 30 stalwarts, strong-arm men. When we read this statement that was made before the program, in which Mr. Drainie said "We believe that the best way to deal with extremists is to expose them, not to pretend that they don't exist", I submit that the extremists he speaks of simply do not exist in Canada. Rockwell stated on the television program that he had only about 100 followers in Canada. The fact remains that the C.B.C. had to go to the United States with a crew, film and tape the program and import the problem into Canada. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that this was not an expose, nor for the purpose of exposure; it was for the purpose of exploitation. They wanted to exploit this film, and not to expose problems that do not exist in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Milton L. Klein: Then Mr. Drainie said:
These are the facts: there has been a significant growth in the power and influence of the far right in the past five years. The American nazi party claims a quarter of a million members; its work is well financed.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit again that it is all very well to make these statements, and on its face it is a very excellent statement; but you had to see the program-I do not know how many did see it-in order to really get a good impression of what this statement tried to convey. Then he said in the statement:

Interim Supply
Once before in another nation, now our ally, a man with views like Rockwell came to power unnoticed by forces that might have stopped him.
He does not say what forces might have stopped him; and to say that Hitler came to power unnoticed is, in my view, completely contrary to the facts; because Hitler was known for many years prior to his ascension to power in 1933. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I may say that neither Hitler nor any other extremist or tyrant has ever been elected to power in any democracy. They have seized power in a democracy, but were never elected to power in a democracy. They were able to seize power through a systematic attack upon minority groups, with hate literature and so forth, with which they were able to destroy the nation by setting up one group in a population against another. In the last part of this statement Mr. Drainie says:
What you will see now is not pleasant viewing. Some of you will be frightened by it, all of you will be disturbed by it-
I state that the C.B.C. has acted contrary to the regulations respecting radio broadcasting. I read from part II of the Canada Gazette of February 12, 1964, page 178, where it states in article 12 (1) under the heading "Offensive promotional programs":
Where, in the opinion of a representative of the board, a promotional program broadcast by a station is of an offensive or objectionable nature, or is likely to create or contribute to any public disturbance or disorder, that representative may, by notice in writing, require that station to show cause, in the manner and within the time indicated in the notice, why the character of that program should not be modified.
If Rockwell had applied to the immigration authorities at any port of entry into Canada in an attempt to make a speech before the 100 followers he says he has in Canada, and had wanted to make that speech in some beer hall, as Hitler did in 1923, he would not have been permitted to enter Canada and he would have been, after the board of inquiry hearing, refused admission on the grounds of security.
Here we have the C.B.C. bringing Rockwell into every living room throughout the length and breadth of Canada completely in violation of the immigration regulations of this country. I believe, if my memory serves me aright, there is a standing order to every immigration officer across the country which advises that if Rockwell were to attempt to come to Canada through any port of entry he should be refused admission.
Rockwell vilified Dr. Martin Luther King. I will not dignify his statement by repeating

what he called Dr. Martin Luther King, a man who has just received the Nobel peace prize. By permitting Rockwell to vilify Dr. Martin Luther King the C.B.C., I submit, violated another portion of the regulations. Here I am referring to the same issue, page 172, under the heading of broadcasting generally. Article 5 (1) says:
No station or network operator shall broadcast-
(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation on any race, religion or creed-
I do not see how the C.B.C. can clear themselves of the implication of the violation of this article. If this television program was a preview of colour television I feel impelled to tell the C.B.C. that yellow is not becoming. Because we are now entering an era, if this kind of programming goes on, of yellow television; and may I suggest that moderation is still a virtue in this country.
One of the co-producers of the program is quoted in the Toronto Star for October 26, 1964 as having said this. The co-producer's name is Douglas Leiterman, who explained:
I'm all for sensationalism-but only if it is responsible sensationalism.
I submit that sensationalism is no substitute for responsibility. I say further that I do not believe many Canadians will agree with this statement to which I have referred. Perhaps the only one who would agree with it is Barry Goldwater, one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States. Therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, that responsible people do not make irresponsible statements, and that irresponsible people should be held responsible for irresponsible statements. I submit that the C.B.C. has taken upon itself to do what the government does not want it to do by admitting into the living rooms of all Canadians this man Rockwell, who would be refused entry to Canada at any border point in the country; and in particular it has violated the provisions and regulations of the Broadcasting Act in the manner I have indicated.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the C.B.C. along a somewhat different line than that followed by most of those who have spoken so far, whose remarks have been related chiefly to programming. In my view the complaints in this regard are the result of the organization of the C.B.C., the manner in which it carries on its operations and the lack of any real control over these operations by anybody.
As we all know, the C.B.C. is not accountable to the government or to any cabinet

minister for its operations. Theoretically control can be exercised by parliament itself. In actual fact parliament has been very loath to exercise that control. From the practical point of view the only way parliament can exercise any control is, first, by withholding funds for the operation of the C.B.C., something we have not been prepared to do largely because there is insufficient information available as to the amount which should be withheld and the purpose for which it should be withheld.
The second way in which control can be exercised is by the appointment of a committee of the house to look into the affairs of the C.B.C. There is no standing committee of the house on broadcasting, and special committees have been set up at relatively infrequent intervals. As a result they have not served as an effective means for parliament to exercise control over the C.B.C.
I think a great improvement could be made in this regard if a standing committee on broadcasting were set up and divided into subcommittees, each of which could pursue in detail the operations of a particular phase of the C.B.C.'s activities and thus be able to arrive at an appraisal of what was going on, with the result that the committee would be in a position to make specific recommendations as to the improvements which should be made and as to the course which should be followed.
More important even than the fact that parliament has had no practical means of controlling the C.B.C.'s expenditures or its operations is that it has had no means even of ensuring that the views and recommendations of the committees it has appointed are implemented. In many cases the C.B.C. has paid no attention whatever to the views which have been expressed in these committees and in this chamber itself. A good example of how little attention the C.B.C. pays to the only body to which theoretically it is accountable is the fact that there is no one here in the official gallery from the C.B.C. today paying any attention to the debate which is now taking place; and I doubt whether there is anybody from the C.B.C. in any of the galleries. In other words, what they say is "We don't care what parliament says about us. We don't care what parliament wants. We are going to run our show in the way we want and parliament can go ahead and talk as much as it likes; it will not affect us."
We all have in our possession a very good report on the C.B.C. produced by the Glassco
Interim Supply
commission-or to give it the full title, the royal commission on government organization-which was issued in January, 1963. In this report on the C.B.C. the Glassco commission made, I think, more serious criticisms of the corporation than of any other crown corporation or department of government. However, remarkably little has been done by the C.B.C. to correct the deficiencies which are pointed out in this report. I should like to quote to some extent from this report in order to indicate those things which the Glassco commission found were wrong with the C.B.C. as a result of its study. In their conclusions on page 49 they have this to say:
-there can be no doubt but that the corporation is in need of extensive reorganization to secure efficiency and economy in its operations.
But that reorganization has not taken place, although two years will soon have elapsed since the time the report was issued. A little farther on they say:
-it is apparent that substantial savings can be effected through the application of tried and proven principles governing the devolution of authority and by establishing the accountability of management in its various functions.
These remarks, of course, are particularly applicable to the financial operations of the C.B.C. The Glassco commission also found, as indicated in various places in their report, that the organization of the C.B.C. was not effective either from the point of view of controlling expenditure or controlling programming. With regard to the financial aspect the commission made a number of comments and as found on page 27 of their report stated:
Each year parliament is asked to vote the funds necessary to bridge the gap between corporate income and outgo. The scrutiny of these budgets is carried out by the staff of the treasury board, the outcome being usually an arbitrary reduction in the operating budget of three or four million dollars.
This is the important part.
No direction is given the corporation concerning the control of either revenue or expenditure.
In other words, from the financial point of view they in effect do just what they want to do. Treasury board chops off a few million dollars from the proposed expenditures which they submit every year. When we were dealing with this matter in the public accounts committee I said to the president of the C.B.C.: I presume you do what I have reason to believe a considerable number of the departments of the government do; you submit a somewhat higher amount in your estimates than you expect you are going to get because

Interim Supply
you figure you will have three or four million dollars cut off. This statement was not denied by him and in my opinion that is undoubtedly the situation.
With regard to the financial affairs of the corporation, the commission went on to criticize the budgeting procedure and on page 47 and following of their report they have a number of things to say about this matter. They state:
-the budgetary procedures reflect an unsound approach. Budgets are based initially on broad estimates by head office, influenced by results of the preceding year, instead of being developed in the operating centres on the basis of firm program schedules. They are then submitted to the treasury board. Only after the total has been approved are target figures issued to the operating units as a basis for the preparation of detailed regional budgets. As a result, the final budgets are based on what it cost last year plus an estimate of additional requirements, with no searching analysis of last year's costs. They possess, therefore, little real value for purposes of planning as effective instruments of control.
In other words, what the C.B.C. does is to take it for granted that it is going to get an increased amount of money for operating purposes from parliament every year. It draws up a budget on that basis with the total being more than it thinks treasury board will allow. It submits a budget in that way and after it receives a lump sum it begins to decide how to divide up the pie. As a result there is no proper budgeting procedure and budgeting control.
Earlier this year, having been disturbed by the very serious criticisms of the C.B.C. in the Glassco commission report, I moved in the public accounts committee that the committee should look into the financial picture of the C.B.C. This was agreed to by the committee and was done. However, we were limited in our investigation to the consideration of the Auditor General's report for the previous year, 1962-63. The committee was not able to deal with programming or even with the present financial picture. While the work done by the committee was in my opinion very useful and disclosed a lot of interesting information, it in no way took the place of a regular broadcasting committee. In order to deal effectively with the C.B.C. from year to year there is no question in my mind that we need a standing committee on broadcasting, and a committee should be set up immediately to go into the affairs of the corporation forthwith. In that regard I would refer to the fifth report of the public accounts committee which dealt with the broadcasting corporation and contains this statement as found
[Mr. Harkness.l
on page 962 of the proceedings of the committee:
The committee noted that the Auditor General raised questions concerning contents of report No. 19, volume 4 of the report of the royal commission on government organization-
Then it goes on to refer to this statement by the president of the corporation:
-the president stated that he did not agree with all the recommendations of the royal commission and explained that the royal commission had apparently failed to understand the nature of the problem.
This was the experience we had in the committee. With regard to practically every criticism and question raised about the operations of the corporation the president of the C.B.C. immediately fell back on the stock phrase, "We have a mandate from the Canadian people to provide a broadcasting service", or such statements as "I just do not agree with what the Glassco commission found" or "I do not agree with the criticisms that are being made". Never did we receive any really effective answer to our criticisms and there was an apparent determination on the part of the corporation to carry on in the same way as in the past. It did not matter what the Glassco commission had said or what the committee members said. In their report the public accounts committee went on to say:
The committee recommends that the Secretary of State table an official memorandum in the house presenting the corporation's views and its replies to each of the matters dealt with by the royal commission in its report No. 19, and that this be done before the estimates of the corporation are considered by the house.
I hope very much that the Secretary of State has secured such a memorandum from the president of the C.B.C. and that it will be available to us before the estimates are concluded. If not, we will have but another example of a recommendation of a committee of the house being set aside and no attention being paid to it. I think one of the things that the proceedings of the public accounts committee and their consideration of the C.B.C. did do was to show the need for a full inquiry into the capital expenditures planned by the corporation. It was made clear in the committee that facilities such as studios, offices and so on at Montreal and Toronto, which in the report we were considering were estimated to cost $83 million, were estimated just a short time later to cost $105 million. Some time before that the estimate had been $71 million or $72 million. So it is quite evident that the C.B.C. plans to expend a very large amount of money on

capital investment. Whether this is necessary, whether the amount they are planning to spend is required or half that amount or some other proportion, we had no means of finding out. Before any money is voted to the C.B.C. for its big capital expansion program, this is one of the things which I think should be looked into thoroughly by the broadcasting committee of the house. The exchange which I had with Mr. Ouimet in regard to this matter is found on page 486 of the committee report. It is rather illuminating and is also a good example of the difficulty we will have in getting changes made in C.B.C. procedure. I was asking Mr. Ouimet about this $105 million loan, and then I went on to say:
As far as the money for these two big complexes is concerned, I know this report says, "subject to appropriation by parliament" but I note that in this year's estimates there is provision for a $14 million loan to the corporation for capital expenditures.


Mr.   Ouimet@: This is for the consolidation requirements and for other projects.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under the $105 million?


Mr.   Ouimet@: It is for all our projects. The government has decided that prior to approval by parliament-because it has to go to a vote-it would finance our requirements as loans instead of grants as it has done in the previous years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How do you propose to pay back these loans?


Mr.   Ouimet@: We propose to pay back these loans from our income which will in great part be from public funds and in a lesser part from commercial revenue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, how are you going to pay the interest on the loan?


Mr.   Ouimet@: The same way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words you are going to get a loan from the dominion government to build these things, then you are going to get a grant from the dominion government with which to pay the interest, and then you are going to get a grant subsequently to pay off the capital.
Then, I said this:
Perhaps then I had better ask Mr. Henderson who, as Auditor General, audits all these accounts, what he thinks of this type of financing which quite frankly I must say, seems to me to be ridiculous-
Then, Mr. Henderson states:
-I thought it to be a rather remarkable exercise in financing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a euphonious way to put it.
This is just one example, Mr. Chairman, of the way in which the C.B.C. goes ahead to spend money, one way or another, without any real control being exercised and without the money even having been voted by parliament for that purpose. There are many other examples which one could cite to indicate the same sort of thing but I will not go into them at this time.
20220-600J
Interim Supply
Yesterday during this discussion the hon. member for Halifax said that the responsibility for any errors made by C.B.C. rests with the members of the board of directors. They are the people who should be held responsible and if there are any attacks to be made they are the ones who should be attacked. In fact, the actual control that the board of directors is able to exercise is not very good. The Glassco commission dealt with this matter and made it quite clear that, in their view, the board of directors was able to exercise very little real control. On page 34 of the report we find these remarks in that regard:
The board reviews-
That is the board of the C.B.C.
-and approves most of the activities of the corporation but its role appears to consist largely of ratifying decisions already made-
In other words, it is merely a rubber stamp.
-rather than initiating corporate policy. As presently constituted, the board cannot be expected to act as more than an advisory committee with indeterminate terms of reference and this situation is the indirect cause of much of the criticism of the management of the corporation.
In other words, this is one of the great weaknesses, that the board of directors cannot exercise the control which parliament quite evidently felt it should exercise when the C.B.C. was set up. I think there is no doubt this is one of the things that needs to be done so far as the reorganization of the C.B.C. is concerned, to increase the powers of the board so the board will be in a much better position than it has been in the past to lay down policy and to see that that policy is carried out.
When we come to programs the line of control, even by headquarters of the C.B.C. itself, is fairly general as shown by the Glassco commission. We have this particular matter dealt with at page 37 of the report, and I quote:
If it be accepted that the primary business of the corporation is to produce and broadcast radio and television programs, the most striking feature of the headquarters organization is that fewer than 20 people are directly concerned with programming while over 800 are engaged in ancillary operations. It is therefore difficult to resist the conclusion that the headquarters organization is excessively preoccupied with secondary matters, and that the generally high standard of the national program service is largely attributable to the enterprise and initiative of the network and regional managements.
The present massive Ottawa headquarters results in part from an observation of the 1959 special committee on broadcasting which

Interim Supply
recommended that there should be an administrative reorganization, and the restoration of clear authority and responsibility to the central headquarters in Ottawa. Then the report continues:
Action was accordingly taken by the corporation but there was no substantive reorganization; a whole new level of management was superimposed on the existing organization, but the effective management of broadcasting remained where it had always been-in Montreal and Toronto. The three general managers and the vice president-programming, were appointed with no clear demarcation of their respective areas of responsibility. Meeting together each week as a program council, they attempted to co-ordinate their policies, but have little or no real control over the planning and scheduling of network programs.
In other words, the people in the headquarters of the corporation itself do not know what is going on and have no means of controlling what is going on. I continue to quote from the report:
In carrying out these changes the corporation failed to give assent to the recommendations made by both the Fowler commission and the 1959 Commons committee that a single executive be given clear authority over the broadcasting function.
Then, the report goes on to speak of this supervisory group of four vice presidents and a comptroller in these terms:
No recognizable pattern or system is evident in the grouping of functions between these officers-
And farther down:
One result of the present arrangements is that the ordinary business of corporation management is undertaken by a profusion of committees, which occupy much of the time of the staff at every level of management.
The result of this is that no real control is exercised over general programming so far as the headquarters end of things is concerned. For the most part, it is a waste of time.
A little farther down, the report reads:
There is no effective central authority over broadcasting, and an overzealous control of secondary activities affords no compensating safeguards, while distracting much of the attention of senior officers from the principal business of the corporation.
This, I think, is perhaps the basic difficulty in the organization of the C.B.C. There is no real control over programming residing in the national headquarters of the corporation. That is delegated to the regional offices and it is doubtful how much control is exercised in them. In the committee we were given two or three examples showing the lack of control any place so far as programming and the money invested in it were concerned. One example was the film "Mr. Pearson."

Another was the Cuban scene film, both of which cost a considerable amount of money. Apparently nobody in authority knew what was being done or exercised control over the expenditure of funds.
We did not get the cost of the "Mr. Pearson" film because it was not made in the period we were dealing with, 1962-3, but the Cuban scene film cost some $40,000 odd, and of course it was not shown. Each year there is quite a list of films and programs known as write-offs. Apparently someone just decides to start making a film or a program, goes ahead and spends a considerable amount of money, and then a decision is made that the end product is not suitable for showing, and the costs are written off. Treasury board authority has to be secured for these writeoffs, but in any event the money involved goes down the drain.
These are but a few of the criticisms of the C.B.C. which are to be found in the Glassco commission report. I do not have time to deal with the comments it made on the engineering and architectural staff, on the sales organization and many other matters. But there is another suggestion which it made that I think is of considerable importance. Among the commission's conclusions, as recorded at page 51 of its report, it says:
No matter how strong or capable a board may be assembled-
This is on the basis that the powers of the board are going to be improved.
-there will remain a need for policy direction from the government. This can normally be accomplished by informal means but, as a fundamental protection, the minister responsible should have the power of formal direction. Such a plan offers no threat whatever to the integrity of the corporation's program activities, for which the board of directors must assume full responsibility.
This is something which we have been loath to accept as part of the set-up of the C.B.C. because of fear of political interference with its operations, and particularly with its programming, but that is exactly the situation which exists in the United Kingdom so far as the B.B.C. is concerned, and the system appears to work quite well there. I see no reason why it should not work quite well here.
In any event the experience of recent years has indicated the fact that ultimate control of the C.B.C. must reside some place and must be capable of being exercised. It is possible it could be exercised by the means I have suggested, namely a standing committee on broadcasting, with subcommittees dealing

with specific parts of the C.B.C.'s operations, and meeting frequently to deal with them. However, I believe this a case in which the government must take the ultimate responsibility as it does in all other federal government activities. The exemption of the C.B.C. from this responsibility has not been a happy experience and for that reason I urge that we try the system which is used with the B.B.C. in the United Kingdom. This is something which would require much consideration by the broadcasting committee and by the house itself. At least it is something that should be seriously considered.
Statements have been made alleging a desire to interfere with the daily operations, conduct and business of the C.B.C., but I do not believe any one in the chamber has that in mind in any way whatsoever, just as we do not consider that we should interfere with the day to day operations of Polymer-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I note the Postmaster General claps at that. I understand why he does; but to continue, we do not want to interfere with the C.B.C., just as we do not want to interfere with the operations of Eldorado, atomic energy and the numerous other crown corporations. We do not interfere with their day to day activities, but in turn they have somebody to whom they must report and who must accept responsibility for them. In that respect I believe we should have a similar situation covering the C.B.C.
One of the things we require is that the general policy to be followed by the C.B.C. should be laid down by parliament, and methods such as I have suggested should be used to see that the policy laid down is followed. There is no use laying down a policy unless there are means of ensuring that it is implemented. That has been one of the difficulties with the C.B.C. to date because there has been no effective means of doing this.
I know that to lay down a general policy in the field of programming would be difficult, but I do not see any problem in parliament laying down certain general rules which must be followed, for example that no pornographic material be presented and this has been the cause of much of the complaints we have heard during the last ten days. As another example no treasonable, semi or quasi treasonable presentations should be made over the C.B.C. I do not think there would be undue difficulty in ensuring such general rules were applied, without interfering with the freedom of operation which all of us want to see continued for the C.B.C.
Interim Supply
However, I do not believe there is a person in this chamber, and I doubt if there are many people in Canada who believe it is just, reasonable and proper that the taxpayers' money be used to give the best platform in the country to those who are attempting to break down the moral and political system under which we live, to people such as Bour-gault with his separatist activities, Rockwell with his ideas for exterminating the negroes and jews, and that other fellow whose name I have forgotten, the convicted publisher of a pornographic magazine in the United States who appeared on a C.B.C. program a few months ago. It is doubtful if anybody in Canada thinks it reasonable that people of that sort should be given an opportunity to disseminate their ideas to the great majority of our people.
I know the remarks which I have made will be interpreted by some as an attempt to weaken and destroy the C.B.C. but my intention is just the reverse. I have made them for the same reason as I asked a lot of questions about the C.B.C. in the public accounts committee, namely with the idea of improving the C.B.C.'s operation, making it more effective, making it more truly representative of the people of Canada, and making it capable of performing a greater service for them.


Mr. Mackasey:: I listened with considerable interest last night and again today to the discussion revolving around the C.B.C. and its programming. I am sure members of this committee would not deny me the privilege of expressing my opinions on another matter which is of even greater concern to me than are the affairs of the C.B.C. I am referring to the question of national unity in general and to separatism in the province of Quebec in particular.
Recent events in this country, including the visit of Her Majesty to the province of Quebec, have focused the spotlight of public attention on the question of national unity and the growth of separatism as never before in the history of this nation. In discussing this subject it is not my intention to dwell at any length on the alleged brutality of the Quebec city police, other than to say we all deplore the use of violence, particularly in the name of law and order, nor is it my intention to speak of the events which led to the feeling of fear which permeated the city of my birth in the weeks and days preceding the royal visit. I am more interested at the moment in putting forward my views about the growth of separatism in Quebec.

Interim Supply
I cannot approach the subject of separatism with the detailed knowledge of a Mason Wade-


Lucien Lamoureux: It is my duty to interrupt the hon. member at this point in order to remind him that in some way his comments as we consider this resolution on interim supply must be related to government administration. I appreciate that what he has said up to now is introductory in nature, but I urge him to keep in mind that his remarks must be related in some way to one or other of the items of supply covered by this resolution.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps by some stretch of the imagination we can consider the maintenance of law and order as being one of the functions of the government. A little later in my remarks I intend to deal briefly with matters concerning the C.B.C. Perhaps the committee would be patient for a while because, being an Irishman, it takes me a little while to get to the point.
As I said a few moments ago, I cannot discuss separatism with the detailed knowledge of a Mason Wade, nor can I lay claim to the title of a political scientist, nor have I majored in Canadian history. I can only discuss separatism and its effect on Quebec and on Canada, from the insight that 43 years of happy existence in Quebec has given me-43 years as part of a minority within a minority; 43 years in which I was never conscious until very recently that perhaps, as an Anglo-Saxon, I was not entirely welcome in the province of my birth.
I have mentioned before in this house, in glowing terms I might add, my feelings of respect and affection for the French Canadians with whom I have been privileged to live for so long. But I would be betraying that friendship and, indeed, insulting these same people if I did not stand here and say there have been many changes in Quebec. These changes, in many cases, are for the better-I have in mind the progress made in the fields of education and economics, for example. But one change I have not relished particularly has been the tendency of many of our political leaders to introduce racism into their political philosophies. Perhaps political instincts are such that it is not exactly wise for an English speaking person living in the province of Quebec to discuss separatism, particularly one who numbers French speaking Canadians among the majority of his electors. Then again, none of us

was elected to this house to perpetuate his role as parliamentarian. All of us were elected to speak out on matters of importance affecting the unity of this country. It is in this light that I should like to discuss separatism and somewhere along the line tie these remarks in with the administrative problems of Canada.
There are misguided optimists, Mr. Chairman, who view the fact that bodily harm did not come to the Queen as an indication that separatism is limited to a few misguided youths, badly organized, a group that will disappear of its own volition. There are others who are very pessimistic because of the deplorable events that marked the Queen's visit to Quebec, people who see separatists behind every tree, people who feel that separatism is lurking around the corner, and who in their panic, judge every action, every word of the French speaking Canadian leaders with suspicion and mistrust. The truth, of course, Mr. Chairman, is that the separatist problem is much more serious than these optimists realize, but not nearly as insoluble as the prophets of doom would have us believe.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is in our best interests to analyse the make up of this movement, for only in understanding the motivation behind its leaders and its members will we be able to suggest the required solutions or decide upon a course of action. Perhaps the one fact that English speaking Canada does not understand, Mr. Chairman, is that the hard core of the separatist movement does contain many sincere people who fully believe in the separatist cause. Never mind whether they are misguided, according to our beliefs; what is more important is to realize that these people do not espouse violence. They do not necessarily hate the English. They simply believe that a new state of Quebec, independent of the rest of Canada, is the best solution for the frustrations and nationalistic feelings of many of their followers. They believe that a separate state will lead to unlimited opportunities for the expansion of their culture, to unlimited job opportunities, to a type of Utopia that seems very rational for those who are blinded by their devotion to a cause. But we must bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that these people, misguided as they may be, are entitled to their opinion, entitled to their movement, precisely in the same way as we provide freedom of expression for those who espouse liberalism, conservatism, socialism or even communism.

But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this hard core of idealists has attracted, as indeed all such movements do attract, a lunatic fringe. These misfits are made up of neurotics, of people who would be failures in any society, including, I might add, a new state of Quebec, if the movement were successful. They include those who revel in the false security of publicity, who delight in the prominence that their acts of violence provides them. They see in the separatist movement, not an ideal, not a dream, but rather a means to a degree of personal recognition which normally would be denied them because of their insignificant contribution to Quebec society.
The movement is made even more dangerous by the very fact that it has invaded our universities, that our young people, at the very moment that they are being introduced to the philosophies of great men, of Locke, and Montesquieu, of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, are being exposed to morbid separatist tendencies. At the very time when we look to the new emphasis on education in Quebec, to produce the leaders of the future, our young men and young women are being filled with the inward-looking theories of pseudo-intellectuals, who by their message of hatred and misunderstanding are prostituting their role as educators, are poisoning whole generations of young French speaking Canadians. And finally, Mr. Chairman, add to this collection those political leaders, those leaders in the field of communications, of radio, of television, those in the journalistic world, who take advantage of the movement to bolster sagging reputations, to gain some shortsighted political advantage, to seek the power that to too many politicians is the prime goal of their very existence.
Perhaps I sound like the pessimists to whom I referred earlier in my remarks. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I felt precisely that way several months ago; I felt, then, that the apathy of Canadians outside this house to the question of separatism would in the end permit its growth to a point of no return. To generalize is very dangerous, but surely the efforts of some of our daily newspapers from outside Quebec have provided the very publicity upon which the lunatic fringe breeds. Not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, I bought a daily newspaper published in Ontario. Three quarters of the front page was devoted to an exclusive interview with a separatist who predicted violence to the Queen. He spoke of the movement of arms
Interim Supply
and all the elaborate preparations that were being made for the Queen's visit. Little wonder that a feeling of apprehension and fear spread out from Canada. But it was only on analysing that article very carefully that one was capable of noting that the so-called exclusive interview took place at two o'clock in the morning in a second-rate, east end Montreal night club, with some young punk, surrounded by his idiot friends, probably well reinforced with liquor. This was the person responsible for making disgusting utterances of violence to the Queen. This type of statement and the article did much to create the atmosphere of tension and fear that permeated Quebec city.
I cannot understand why the leaders of the C.B.C. and the leaders in the journalistic world insist, under the guise of reporting the news, upon providing the type of public exposure which the lunatic fringe in the separatist movement must have for survival. Why cannot the C.B.C. and, for that matter, other means of communication, declare a moratorium on the idiotic utterances of those who revel in the turmoil that their ridiculous statements obviously arouse in this country? One thing that must be emphasized is this. Fully 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the French speaking people of my province have so far rejected the separatist movement; have shown by their aloofness the high degree of responsibility and integrity for which the French speaking peoples of Quebec are justly famous.
Ten months ago, Mr. Chairman, I thought we would lose the battle, by default, for these people's minds. I realized, as no doubt many hon. members have realized, that the separatist movement had so far been confined to certain intellectuals, to young students, and to what I have already referred to as the lunatic fringe. I realized that the very acts of violence that were the responsibility of this lunatic fringe were in fact offsetting amongst the uncommitted the admitted emotional appeal of nationalism. Perhaps the extremist wing of the separatist movement did not realize, or perhaps did not care, that their acts of violence, their intemperate statements, were only impeding the message of the sincere, if misguided, nucleus who really believe in their movement and who hope to achieve it by democratic means.
In that period when I worried about this battle, Mr. Chairman, I longed for one intellectual-just one-from my province to stand up and tell those who advocated separatism that they have no right to confiscate the undeniable stake which French speaking

Interim Supply
Canadians have in this nation; that these separatists could not turn back the passage of time or obliterate history by physical violence, to remind us of the Plains of Abraham. We can thank the Lord, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot obliterate history; for what a tremendous price French Canada would be called upon to pay. Because the history of Canada, particularly in its early years, is dominated by the contribution of French Canadians, not only Cartier and Champlain, not only Frontenac and Maisonneuve, but also the efforts of those explorers who pushed on and discovered lands well beyond their own province, and indeed in the part of North America that is now known as the United States.
Do these separatists feel they have the right to wipe the slate clean of the contribution of men like Cartier and Laurier, of Lapointe and St. Laurent? Can these separatists really believe that French Canadians who died or fought in the two great wars have no stake in this country? Can they not realize that this nation is as much theirs as it is mine; that Quebeckers are just as important to Canada as are the citizens of Ontario or British Columbia? Can these misguided people ignore the dignified and wonderful performance of our Governor General both in peace and in war? Have the extremists the right to obliterate the contributions of Triquet and Brilland and Thibault? Surely, Mr. Chairman, the right of French speaking Canadians to their proper place in the nation's affairs must be clear not only to those separatists but also to those all too numerous persons who refuse to accept fully the French fact across Canada.
I had hoped for one voice or more to express these views; for one politician to talk back, to explode the myths of Anglo-Saxon domination in Quebec, to lay the blame for some of Quebec's lack of economic growth squarely on the shoulders of the inwardlooking policies of Mr. Duplessis. But the pendulum of separatism seemed to stop and the voices of reason did seem to speak back. On May 14 seven French Canadian intellectuals of international repute published what is known as a Canadian manifesto. It is significant that they called it a Canadian manifesto and not a Quebec manifesto. They published this historical document in a magazine known as Cite Libre, a magazine that led the way in Quebec for the emergence of freedom of thought and freedom of expression that was denied the intellectuals of Quebec by Mr. Duplessis. This document exposed separatism

for what it is, an escape from reality, a move that would do nothing for French Canada but would relegate it from a strong, respected voice in Canada to a voice drowned out by the sheer numbers of a completely English speaking continent.
The question of separatism must be faced, and faced immediately. Those intellectuals of Quebec who espouse separatism must be challenged by those intellectuals of Quebec who espouse federalism. Our politicians must speak up; our students must be exposed to the fallacy of the separatist movement.
Several people in this house, Mr. Chairman, are doing precisely that. The Secretary of State's speeches six months or a year ago were treated with scorn in my province. Today they are being reviewed and reviewed again by those who are seeking ways out of our problems. The assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce has shown willingness to do verbal battle in Quebec on the question of separatism. The hon. member for Three Rivers has obviously been making a contribution, as recent events testify. The views of moderation expressed by the hon. member for Villeneuve a few weeks ago did much to reassure the people of this country of the sincerity, maturity and integrity of our Quebec politicians. Recent articles in Le Devoir, he Droit, Le Soleil and L'Action all indicate that those who believe in federalism have many strong and vigorous allies in Quebec, allies who could mean the difference between a nation united and reaching out toward its great destiny or a nation so divided by petty quarrels that it must pale into insignificance and eventually disappear.
While I rejoice at the appearance of cracks in the armour of separatism I cannot but wonder what will happen when the separatist movement virtually disappears, as it will, by the efforts of the French speaking Quebeckers who once again will show the realism that has marked their fight for survival as a cultural group. What will happen, Mr. Chairman, to the separatists outside Quebec when our French speaking Canadians turn once again to Ottawa; when they express a desire once again to participate in the nation's business? Will the doors be closed to them in industry outside Quebec? Will they be expected to forget their own language and every day affairs? Can they look for some relief from the oppressive legislation which in many provinces denies them the rights to which they are entitled under the British North America Act? I refer to rights in the field of education, and education in their own language; rights which

I have always enjoyed as an Anglo-Saxon in the province of Quebec.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the appearance of Rockwell on the C.B.C. was not such a bad thing after all, for it emphasized in a vivid, incisive manner that we have no room in this country for hatred and racism. This obviously sick individual showed us the results of racism and provided us with some food for thought in this country of ours.
Those political leaders in Canada who introduce racism in their arguments-and make no mistake there are many-are either intentionally or unintentionally creating an atmosphere which leads to the type of hatred personified by Rockwell. What is the difference between Rockwell's contempt for the negro and those misguided Canadians who contemptuously tell French speaking people to speak the white man's language? What is the difference between Rockwell's evil, disgusting remarks concerning those of the Jewish faith and the utterances of those who condemn the French speaking people because of their religious beliefs? On that latter point, let me say that I have in my possession many articles on this very subject which have been written in well accepted magazines which are circulated in this country.
Let me say this: Our country will stand out like a jewel among nations by reason of our two cultures. They are cultures which do not detract from each other but which, by their contrast, emphasize the greatness of each. This is the dream we should all be striving for, the good life so ably outlined in the Canadian manifesto, required reading, I suggest, for all of us who are vitally concerned with national unity.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say that I am sure of the disappearance of the French speaking separatist. Can anyone in this house guarantee me the disappearance of the English speaking separatist?


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Verdun on his wise, reasoned, reasonable, very sound and very eloquent remarks which he has addressed to a profoundly important subject. In the manner of his delivery he demonstrated that he is indeed gifted, as are most Irish folk, with great felicity of phrase and it was a pleasure to hear him. I remember his leader, the Prime Minister, saying some months ago, when the hon. member for Three Rivers spoke eloquently in French on a similar subject, that the voice of moderation and reason must be heard in this house and in this country both
Interim Supply
in English and in French. I think today, Mr. Chairman, we have heard in English a most sound and valuable discourse on the subject to which we all must give our very best not only of attention but of effort.
If I were not a Scotsman, Mr. Chairman,
I would probably carry on with the subject raised by the hon. member, who said he took a long time to get started. But being a Scot I am stubborn and I think I will continue with the subject I had in my mind before the hon. member made his speech. The question of the C.B.C., as with questions concerning all our crown corporations, is an extremely difficult one. On Friday the hon. member for Port Arthur discussed the question of control in connection with the railway. The hon. member for Calgary North in his very wise and valuable speech dealt with the same subject and the relationship between parliament and crown corporations. I know it is very easy for the Secretary of State or the Minister of National Revenue, almost as a conditioned response, to say they will transmit so and so's views to the management of the C.B.C. This has been the practice for a long time. Yet as representatives of the public we cannot divorce ourselves from our concern for this tremendously important medium.
In a very valuable document, the Massey royal commission on arts, letters and sciences, I find in the section dealing with broadcasting at page 276 of the report a most interesting elucidation of this very question.
The state, having the right and the duty of issuing licences, must impose certain conditions on radio broadcasting. There are, it seems to us, two alternative views between which every country must choose. First, radio may be regarded primarily as a means of entertainment, a by-product of the advertising business. Such a view does not imply that it may not be used for education, for enlightenment and for the cultivation of taste; all these bring entertainment to many people. On the other hand, radio, as one of the most powerful means of education, may be regarded as a social influence too potent and too perilous to be ignored by the state which, in modern times, increasingly has assumed responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.
This welfare, of course, extends beyond the provision of food, clothing and shelter.
I am not going to join in any vendetta against the C.B.C. It is not my purpose in the few minutes allowed me to put that institution in the dock and fire verbal arrows at it. I would not want this country without the C.B.C. It is one of the things I miss most when I happen to be abroad. Nor would it be useful to me to indulge in discussing my tastes and preferences as to what should be heard over the C.B.C. or aired over C.B.C.

Interim Supply
television. The old Latin expression, de gustibus non est disputandum, applies or, as they say in French, chacun a son gout. I suppose I have just demonstrated to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am a little worse in French than I am in Latin. But there is no accounting for human tastes, and we could all discuss at great length that which we like and that which we do not like.
What I am concerned about is that we seem to be in one of those phases where there is a widespread feeling of concern and anxiety about the C.B.C. among the public. This is not just something that has sprung up because of a program last Sunday night. We find all sorts of people and organizations taking aim at this time at the C.B.C. and it is not enough to reply that they are independent in management and independent in administration and so on.
I know it is a dangerous course to come even close to suggesting that points of view, however unpleasant, should be muffled, that some sort of censor should be appointed, because the question then is: How do you trust the censor and whom do you trust to become censor? Yet there is a very definite reason for people today asking, as hon. members have asked this afternoon, why we hear so often, so frequently, from the fanatics, the extremists, the oddballs.
We must be realistic and admit that sensationalism is seemingly the most valuable ingredient of reportorial journalism. There have been a lot of good speeches made today, a lot of good speeches were made yesterday and there will be a lot of good speeches made tomorrow, but the people of Canada will not hear too much about them. As a member of the house once said, if he made a good speech it might be reported on page 17 of some newspaper but if he stood on his head it would be flashed on the front page. This session has been so long, and even a young man like myself is so tired, that I would not dare try to do that because if I ever got inverted I might not get converted. But this is a fact that we must face.
It is unfortunate that there seems to be such a plethora of the off-colour, of the fantastic, of the "way-out". I thought today, as the Secretary of State was announcing the names of the members of his commission on election expenses, and a very illustrious group of names they were, of how much it would cost any of us as candidates to get the prime time that the leader of the American nazi party got over C.B.C. television.

I would hope I will always be able to admit the need, indeed the desirability of airing stimulating ideas, even if they are disturbing to me and unpopular to the majority. In a country like ours we require a free market of ideas but in that market let there be some ample stalls for the stable and even the staid elements of our society. Let us hear more often the voices of those who cherish our contemporary political and social institutions. Let us give the platform more often to those who desire not to tear down but to shore up the bulwarks of the society to which we belong.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that mere appearance on a publicly owned television or radio network lends some status, sanction or authority to the views that are aired through those facilities. This of course is wrong, and if we have a moment to apply our rational processes we know it is wrong. In connection with the seemingly famous program of last Sunday night I commend the C.B.C. for their efforts to set the stage for that dreadful racist from the United States and to disavow in advance his evil utterances. However, while I have a high regard for the credibility of people I am afraid that not all viewers and listeners got the full import of the C.B.C.'s very proper disavowal and disengagement.
We only have to remember what happened a few years ago when Orson Welles' famous program, "The War of the Worlds", was aired over radio in the United States. Although not once but thrice it was clearly laid out that this was fantasy, that this was a drama, that it was not true, hundreds of people ran outside their homes fearful that missiles from outer space were going to crash upon them. This is one of the facts we must face.
Since we seem anxious to talk about this program-I might say this was the first time I had seen it-I think that while it is perhaps not a large matter the C.B.C. did commit an impropriety or an act of unneighbourliness in releasing a political film prepared for viewers in the United States which the leaders of the party in the United States who ordered the production of the film decided should not be seen. Our own Canada Elections Act, for instance, would prohibit any of us from using United States television facilities to beam in a program upon the voters in our own area. With a little careful thought I feel that the corporation would not have undertaken this sort of thing.

What do we do? Do we put the C.B.C. into shackles? Do we put it into receivership? Do we make it an agency of some government department? Do we put it under a minister?
I say no, no, a thousand times no. As much as I think of the Secretary of State I would not think it would be a proper move to put the C.B.C. under his wing or under the wing of any minister of any government, because this is the very kind of control that we do not want and must not have in a free democracy. You cannot have a government controlling the media with the media becoming an emanation of any particular set of thoughts. We do not want thought control. Yet the canons of good taste, good judgment and administrative economy must remain operative. They must emanate from somewhere. They must be directed by someone.
Like the hon. member for Calgary North I am concerned about the apparent insensitivity of the C.B.C. president and management to the views of the public. No one would suggest that the C.B.C. must run for shelter at every expression of public opinion and that it try to prejudge popular reaction and go always to the side of the majority. If the C.B.C. had done this through the years, and had not done that which was unpopular and unprofitable we would have much poorer radio and television fare in this country today. I will never join those who would destroy the C.B.C. or who would turn the whole thing over to private enterprise. I have lived in lands where all radio and television were in the beneficent hands of private businessmen and more than ever I thought that the C.B.C. was a pretty good thing. I do not think I am being un-Conservative in this regard because I recall the whole thing began in the days of a very great Canadian prime minister, R. B. Bennett.


Mr. Macaluso:: You would never know it now.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Well, perhaps it is not as good as it was in the days of R. B. Bennett, but I do not have the time to go into value judgments of that kind. As we know the legislation certainly envisaged, as did that great prime minister, that it would be a vehicle for national education, for national unity. In this field it has grown to play an essential and valuable part in Canadian life. It is for this reason I am concerned and why I am taking a few minutes to enter this discussion.
The C.B.C. is such a valuable part of our life, so important to all of us in these days when there is such a plethora of idea coming
Interim Supply
in upon men's minds. It is extremely important that the C.B.C. not endanger its effectiveness or diminish its usefulness in the country. I am fearful that it might lose its effectiveness, both potentially and actually, if it goes too far in its disregard for the deep-seated anxieties of many Canadians. I was impressed by the group of women's organizations read out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat yesterday. This is not a group of narrow-minded Mrs. Grundys looking for notoriety. These are respectable, reputable and highly intelligent people. I share, in sorrow and in sympathy, the closing sentence in this article:
How did the usually circumspect C.B.C. manage to alienate so many of those who should be its friends and supporters?
The C.B.C. does not have to win a popularity contest, but it cannot find itself in a position where the great bulk of Canadian people look upon it with distrust, suspicion and indeed with hostility. I believe that at this stage in its operation, and it is an important phase for it, the C.B.C. would benefit and Canada would benefit greatly from the establishment of such a committee as has been suggested by many hon. members. There are many known areas for administrative improvement. It is quite possible that many more would come to light. There are many suggestions which could be made. It is often alleged that there is a little too much centralization of thought in the C.B.C. We have very valuable public affairs programs with informed opinion from here and there. I do not belong to that great group of Canadians who believe that "hate Toronto" is a valuable motto. However, I do not see why so many of the informed people and ideas must emanate from Toronto. There are in other parts of the country people with ideas on contemporary problems from whom I should like to hear from time to time. In recent years I am happy that we have heard a great deal from informed, intelligent commentators in the province of Quebec whose major language is French. I hope that equal opportunity is given listeners on the French network to hear from the same type of people in the English speaking sector of our society.
There are things which we should look into. I was shocked yesterday to hear that a member of the Quebec cabinet suggested the C.B.C. was suffering from communist infiltration. The television reporters for the C.B.C. French network, I understand, have protested the statement by Hon. Bona Arsenault that the network was the scene of left wing

Interim Supply
communist infiltration. I feel that this is a very serious allegation. I hope it is not true. Until I am convinced otherwise, I believe it is not true. This is another proper field for a sane, calm, cool investigation, followed by suggestions from a parliamentary committee. I would urge the setting up of such a committee. No one wants an outbreak of anxiety, reaching crisis proportions, about the C.B.C. We do not want this to become yet another trouble in the country which is allowed to develop into massive proportions. Then, to be followed by serious adjustments and retreats. Let us deal with it now. There has been a widespread expression of opinion, so let a move be taken and have the matter looked at by a committee.
It will not help Canada, it will not help any of us, if the C.B.C. is degraded and its effectiveness diminished. Let us move now. I join in support of those who have suggested the efficacy of a committee, not a witch hunting committee but a committee which will seek ways of improving the effectiveness of the C.B.C. or, to use a favourite expression, improving the image of the C.B.C., which is so valuable to all of us. None of us wants to see it reach a point where it is going to lose its great value in our society.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I would have been quite happy to leave any remarks I had to make about the C.B.C. until the estimates of that department were before us. Apparently, however, we are going to have interim supply for some time, the subject is up for discussion, so I am getting in at this particular point. I want to make my remarks about the general criticisms which have been made, and then later I have some particular remarks concerning the selection of the C.B.C. site in Vancouver.
The hon. member for Calgary North, speaking earlier, referred to the relationship of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the British parliament. He thought that was a good type of relationship and perhaps one that we should have here. I quite agree. I would remind hon. members that in the United Kingdom parliament, members are not up every day during the question period sniping away at the B.B.C. or asking questions about the programs. There is a properly established committee which periodically reviews the complete operations of the British Broadcasting Corporation and I believe also of the independent television networks which have been set up in recent years. It seems to me that much of the discussion which we have 
had here in the last few months has been out of order. It would have been much better to have discussed these matters at the time the estimates were before us. We will have a further opportunity when the committee, headed by Mr. Fowler, reports in a few months time. His committee is making a very thorough investigation of the broadcasting industry. I imagine this report will be the subject of intensive study by parliament itself and by a parliamentary committee.
There are many aspects of the C.B.C. operation, Mr. Chairman, which properly should concern members of parliament. They should be concerned about the operational budget of the corporation and about the building budget. We have heard a great deal about the sum of money that is being spent on buildings in Toronto and Montreal. Perhaps this is too much. We should be concerned, I think, about the lack of decentralization of the operations of the C.B.C. and the tremendous concentrations in Toronto and Montreal. All of these things should be of concern at the proper time.
One thing we should not be concerned about, as was stated by some hon. members yesterday, notably the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), is the daily programming of the corporation. To show how ridiculous we might get I want to read briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Peterborough Examiner last spring at the time of the "Open Grave" controversy.
We can imagine what would happen if the C.B.C. was directly responsible to parliament, instead of through its president and a minister of the crown. The Commons would hardly have time for any other business, so eager are its members to be broadcasting experts. The result might well be live programs from the Commons itself: "Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of our television audience, I am the Conservative member from Brassneck and the Islands and am about to give the government a severe drubbing..." What fun the public could have switching channels and corrupting itself with American programs while this was going on!
The type of activity that is being carried on in this chamber concerning programming was well described last April in the television column of the Globe and Mail written by Dennis Braithwaite in which he said:
A case could be made for a full investigation of broadcasting (its public and private segments and the B.B.G.-not just the C.B.C.) and the corporation itself has asked for such an inquiry. What is not needed is another witch hunt in which the C.B.C. is asked to account for every hell and damn spoken by its actors, every unpopular or even scandalous opinion expressed by its commentators and every inch of leg shown by its dancers.

Most of all, let's not have a big hullabaloo about bringing the C.B.C. under the control of parliament. It must be made clear somehow, to backbenchers and to crusaders like Mr. Hogan that the C.B.C., although responsible to parliament in the ultimate sense, has always been and must continue to be entirely free to run its business under its mandate.
I agree that there is some clarification needed concerning its mandate. Perhaps something along the lines of the B.B.C. is what we need, but I am quite prepared to wait until the Fowler committee makes its report before dealing with that theory.
I was quite disturbed yesterday by some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. He named a number of programs which appeared in the "Quest" and "Festival" series, and used such terms as "filth," "homosexuality" and "pornography." In fact he used these terms fairly frequently. I do not know what kind of authority the hon. member is on filth, pornography, homosexuality and other subjects.
I do not know who is an authority on these matters. However I suggest that the average member of parliament is probably not a very good drama critic, and I further suggest not many programs that appear on the C.B.C. deal with these controversial subjects.
I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that the broadcasting medium from time to time ought to deal with controversial subjects.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did the hon. member for Northwest Territories not quote these expressions from a newspaper report dealing with a ladies organization which was raising objections? I believe that is the case.


Robert William Prittie: The hon. member for Northwest Territories did quote that as put forth by the ladies organization, but he used his own terms during the course of his speech.
My point is that most of the time on the C.B.C. television network is taken up with pretty standard broadcasting fare, and there is very little in this controversial field. Most of it comes up in drama broadcasts, but I submit that throughout the ages dramatists have brought in controversial material in order both to entertain and make the public think. Shakespeare did it, and any dramatist worthy of the name has done the same thing. There is not much real controversial drama presented on radio and television and I do not believe we should complain about the small amount that is broadcast.
Interim Supply
I have with me a copy of the C.B.C. Times for the week October 31-November 6, and I suggest it would be a good idea to look at the programs on the English language television network for several nights between the hours of seven thirty and eleven o'clock. On Saturday October 31 at 7.30 the program is "The Saint". At 8.30 there is "Hockey Night in Canada," 10.15 "Juliette," and at 10.45 "The Quebec Scene."
On Sunday night at seven o'clock there is the "Patty Duke Show," 7.30 "Flashback," eight o'clock "The Ed Sullivan Show," nine o'clock "Bonanza" and at ten "This Hour has Seven Days."
On Monday, November 2 at 7.30, there is "Don Messer's Jubilee," eight "Show of the Week," nine "Dangerman," and at ten "Other Voices," which is a sort of public affairs broadcast. As will be seen most of these are purely entertainment.
Tuesday, November 3, is not a very good evening because it is the night of the U.S. election, but the "Jack Benny show" is to be broadcast before the election results.
On Wednesday, November 4, at 7.30 there is to be "Provincial Affairs (tonight: the Liberal party)". I do not know what category this comes under, whether entertainment, information or drama. Then at 7.45 there is "Mr. Fix-it," eight "Red River Jamboree," 8.30 "Perry Mason," and at 9.30 a documentary on China called "The 700 Million." Again on this evening that is the only program of anything other than an entertaining value, including the one at 7.30.
These are fairly typical of evening programs on the English language television network, and I submit very little of the time is taken up with the kind of program that tends to be controversial, drama programs such as in "Quest" and "Festival." We should continue to have that type of program, and if people are shocked now and then, what of it? You cannot please all the people all the time.
One person who is apparently quite highly regarded by our television audiences is Mr. Lome Greene, the star of the program "Bonanza." Years ago he lived in this country and got his start on the C.B.C. When he visited Montreal earlier this year he was interviewed, and I quote from the Montreal Star of March 31 last:
Lome Greene looked back proudly yesterday on his alma mater, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and spoke of its courage in maintaining its programming independence, as in the case of the controversial "Open Grave" program last week. Then, referring to U.S. television, which has made

Interim Supply
him one of its stars, he said "this kind of courage is also becoming more frequent on the American networks, as we can see in such explosive programs as those on integration and other social and political conditions."
We have this type of exploratory, controversial program which arouses people and causes them to think. Mr. Greene suggests the Americans are now beginning to adopt the same idea, and I suggest this is something of which we should be proud.
Another Canadian actor who spends some of his time in the U.S., Mr. Lloyd Bochner, had this to say, and I quote from the Globe and Mail of March 13 last, at a time when he was back in Canada to do a program for the "Festival" series:
Few things they're doing in the United States can compare with the aspirations and standards of the Canadian t.v. scene these days. This role I'm doing now, for instance, is one of the toughest I can remember.
Mr. Bochner appears in many U.S. t.v. shows but they are usually of a very standard variety and he felt the "Festival" show was a challenge for him to develop a new acting role on the C.B.C.
My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that the amount of criticism we hear is not justified. Since yesterday's debate I conducted my own private poll among members of parliament. In fact I would like to know how much criticism is being directed to members from the public. I represent a constituency in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is a riding which contains approximately 35,000 households, and since January 1, 1964 I have had one complaint about the C.B.C. Someone complained that a wrestling show on Saturday afternoon was cancelled. I checked with two other members from the lower mainland or greater Vancouver area, and neither had received complaints. I checked with three members from the Toronto area, the second most populous area in the country, and one admitted to having one complaint. I also checked with three members from the Montreal area and one of them admitted to having one complaint. I suggest that the widespread public criticism which is supposed to exist does not in fact exist and that members of parliament are not hearing from the Canadian people in any large numbers about the quality of the programs.
For my part I believe there is one other criticism which should be made in the field of telecasting in Canada. This is a subject to which I believe the Fowler committee could well direct its attention. I refer to the

difference between some of the promises made by certain private telecasters when they were applying for licences from the board of broadcast governors and their performance subsequently. In the October issue of the ACTRA Newsmagazine, the publication of the association of Canadian television and radio artists, appears the proceedings at the hearing of the board of broadcast governors when Mr. Bushnell was making an application for a television licence for CJOH-TV here in Ottawa. We are given a verbatim report of what he promised, side by side with comments upon what has been done. There were great promises made concerning the amount of money which would be spent on Canadian talent and Canadian shows. These promises have simply not materialized. In fact, ACTRA says, since the station began broadcasting in 1961, members of the association have earned $180 for performing. Nevertheless, thousands of dollars were promised for Canadian talent. As I say, I believe this subject is worthy of investigation, bearing in mind the fact that the C.B.C. does spend very large sums of money providing a living for entertainers and artists of many kinds and making it possible for them to work full time in their occupations, supplementing their income from other sources. Without work for the C.B.C. it would not be possible for them to do this.


Mr. Moreau:: If you got Doug Fisher in the organization it would probably cost more than it does now.


Robert William Prittie: Well, he is quite a performer.
Mention has been made of the controversial program in the series "This Hour has Seven Days". I saw the second half of the program during which the American nazi Rockwell was interviewed. The hon. member for Cartier took strong exception to this broadcast and I realize his feelings on this subject may well be different from mine. I did not have the impression, as he apparently did, that it was simply sensationalism. The hon. member mentioned the fact that Rockwell stated there were about 100 members of his group in Canada. But I suggest that anti-Semitism does exist in this country, latently in some cases and openly in others, and that this is a proper subject for inquiry. There are other Americans with whom I do not agree, people for whom in fact I have no liking. But I would not object to their being interviewed on Canadian television. Most Canadians are interested in the United States political scene. There is one group known as the Black Muslims who do not like the white race generally. It could

well be that members of this organization would be interviewed in the United States even if they were not allowed to cross the border into Canada.
I think the interviewers on this particular program did a good job of exposing this man.
I can understand there are people who feel very sensitive about this and I realize their reactions could be very different from my own. But I do think this is the type of controversial, searching program the production needs and I imagine that if the producers do their work properly there will be a great many more complaints and a great deal more controversy in the future.
There is another aspect of this whole question of the continual sniping at C.B.C. programs, and this disturbs me. Even if the minister responsible does not actively interfere with programming-and he should not do so; indeed, I do not think he will-and even if the board of broadcast governors does not move against the corporation, I fear there will be a tendency on the part of management itself to listen to the large number of criticisms which have been made here and to begin to exercise some self-censorship. I know this is what the critics want, but I believe the corporation would be much the poorer if it were to take action along this line.
I wish now to deal with a matter of more local interest relating to the C.B.C. I am glad to see that the Postmaster General who himself comes from the city of Vancouver is present in the house because this has to do particularly with the C.B.C. in Vancouver. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, there has been a controversy during the past few months between the Vancouver city council on the one hand and the corporation and the federal government on the other. The R.C.A.F. has given up certain facilities at Kitsilano park, Vancouver, and the parks board would like the whole site to revert completely to parkland. The C.B.C. wanted to take a small part of that site as a location for its studios during the next few years. At the present time the C.B.C. studios in Vancouver are scattered all over the downtown area. Radio facilities are in one place, in the hotel Vancouver-apparently they have to leave these premises-while the television studio, located in a former garage, is an absolute disgrace. It is amazing to me they can turn out good productions with such a poor physical plant. Since the opportunity arose for the corporation to go to the Kitsilano site there has been a long discussion among the
Interim Supply
city council, the parks board, the federal authorities and the C.B.C. concerning this move. The latest proposal is that the C.B.C. should go to downtown Vancouver. The city council is presenting a proposal for the redevelopment of the downtown area and it wants federal assistance to buy land, clear the land and redevelop it. The council wants the C.B.C. to spend a considerable amount of money putting up a fine headquarters in downtown Vancouver. I think I have the solution to this problem, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Postmaster General will listen carefully.
In July the reeve of Burnaby sent a wire to the C.B.C. with the authority of the council to the effect that land would be available to the corporation at a nominal cost-I presume that means $1 a year-if the corporation would locate its British Columbia headquarters in Burnaby. The officers of the corporation have not, to my knowledge, gone into this subject thoroughly. Nevertheless I think the offer should be taken seriously. If a site in Burnaby were decided upon, the Kitsilano site would be entirely available for parkland and I presume the Vancouver parks board would be happy. There is some merit, possibly, in the corporation locating in downtown Vancouver, but it seems to me such a move would cost a great deal of money and, of course, one of the main criticisms we hear in this house is directed toward the amount of money the C.B.C. spends. The Burnaby site is one which is very close to the freeway from Vancouver to New Westminster. It is only a few minutes from downtown Vancouver and there are two other arterial highways close by. I might add that an important private television station is located in Burnaby somewhat further out than the proposed site for the C.B.C. This is a central location, geographically, in the population complex on the lower mainland. I suggest that the corporation could save a great deal of money and at the same time have all the space they want. I would urge particularly that this suggestion be considered seriously and not rejected out of hand, because it will cost the corporation and the government a great deal more to locate in the city of Vancouver and, as I said, they could have much more space at much less cost in this very central area of Burnaby.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while the various parties are, on the one hand, criticizing the C.B.C. and, on the other, national unity, I think I shall mainly deal with the

Interim Supply
farm question on the discussion of these estimates for a total of $740,710,974.
Very important things have been said about the C.B.C. and the national unity but, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that neither the problems of the C.B.C. nor those concerning national unity can be settled at this stage of the discussion.
Errors have been made, of course, within the C.B.C. Some provincial representatives, at least in one province, have charged that the C.B.C. was infested by socialists. There are no doubt crypto-socialists and even crypto-communists within the C.B.C., but to conclude that the whole administration is so infested is going a little bit too far. In the case of the C.B.C., I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the officials of that crown corporation, which is costing the Canadian people between $75 and $80 million in deficit a year, should be invited to appear before a standing or other committee of the House of Commons. As stated yesterday by my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), every year officials or the president of the C.N.R., officials or the president of Air Canada do appear before a committee, but the C.B.C. does not, although this corporation is probably costing the Canadian taxpayers more money than any other crown corporation.


Mr. Choqueite:: They go before the public accounts committee.


David Réal Caouette: They do, but we cannot question them.
So, Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. controls television and radio broadcasting in Canada. For instance, some private stations are affiliated with the C.B.C. respecting certain programs during certain hours of the day. Last week I realized that in my district station CKRN-TV, which is affiliated with C.B.C., could no longer grant us the period of time which we had enjoyed over the last ten years, that is, between 7 and 8 p.m., during a 15 minute period, because the C.B.C. has taken over all of this period; it had decided to take over the whole time from eight o'clock until the end of the evening.
In my opinion, more latitude should be granted private stations, especially when authorization is asked from the C.B.C. to change the time of the programs and broadcast them another day of the week; but the C.B.C. refuses this request, and it is difficult for us to obtain a broadcast period through the fault of the C.B.C. I think this is a lack and an injustice toward private enterprise,
[Mr. Caouette.l
toward the freedom of these individuals or organizations that require time over television.
The C.B.C. should consider those requests and those requirements from organizations and other sources. That is the only point I wanted to make this afternoon concerning the C.B.C.
At the beginning of the afternoon, the hon. member for Lapointe mentioned the economic depression which prevails not only in one part of the country, but in several districts, especially those which we call underdeveloped regions. Instead of calling them underdeveloped regions, I would call them undeveloped regions which offer all kinds of possibilities for agricultural and industrial development.
We have reasons to be annoyed when we ask for expenditures by the government, when we ask the government to take a definite stand or when we suggest it should have more modern and more efficient directors to restore our Canadian economy and when we hear members, as I heard one this afternoon, call the hon. member for Lapointe a demagogue because the latter said that it was possible, through the Bank of Canada-without our knowing the amount or the rate of interest-to make loans with a view to stabilizing the pound sterling.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, we are not against that if it can help the Bank of England or the British people. We have no objection to that but we do object to the government's refusal to do the same thing for the Canadian people and we cannot accept the word "demagogue" used this afternoon by a Liberal member. We cannot and we will never accept that.
As far as agriculture is concerned, the hon. member who spoke of demagogy this afternoon would do much better if he went around his riding to see what is happening.
Mr. Chairman, we are now being asked to approve supply in the amount of $740 million for two months. Considering that agriculture is in a state of stagnation, it is probably $1,740 million we would need.
And as I said before, farming is the basis and even the whole social and economic structure of Canada. If our agriculture is revived, the effects will be felt everywhere, but if it is in a state of stagnation, it will also be felt all over the country.
As far as western Canada is concerned, I wish to congratulate the western members for their steady and continuous effort for years, to achieve a modicum of comfort for the western farmer. Those members have

looked after their farmers, they genuinely looked after them, while in eastern Canada our representatives would not even give a thought to agriculture. This is the reason for the discrimination we notice between the eastern and western farmer.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to deprive in the least the western farmers. As a matter of fact, I would be the first to vote for further improvements to promote western agriculture. But it is about time that a government, Liberal or Conservative, carry out the promises made in eastern Canada, in the province of Quebec, in New Brunswick, in short, in all the maritime provinces and tackle the problems facing the farmers today, in the province of Quebec and in the other eastern provinces.
The condition of the eastern farmer regardless of the county is quite appalling, and we are not the only one to complain about the plight of the farmers.
Recently, as reported in Le Soleil of October 23, 1964, Hon. Paul Comtois, addressed the members of the Catholic farmers' union and the press report said:
The lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, His Excellency Paul Comtois, stated last night that the unbalance and the unevenness of the farmers' purchasing power compared to that of people working in industry and various services is now obviously clashing with the common weal.
Hon. Paul Comtois is a former farmer. He operated a farm in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska-I think he still owns it-and when he discusses agriculture, he undoubtedly knows what he is talking about.
According to him, the solution to the complex problem of increasing the farmer's income is certainly not an easy one, but it can be found, it is accessible.
Mr. Chairman, if we draw up a comparison, year by year since 1950, between the income of farmers throughout Canada and that of Quebec farmers, we note a vast difference. In fact, the answer given by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) to a question posed by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) clearly indicates this. We note a decrease in the farmers' income in the province of Quebec, from year to year, since 1950.
In 1950, in Canada, the farmers' income reached $1,219,750,000, as against $211 million in Quebec.
In 1951, in Canada, the farmers' income had increased by $700 million; in Quebec, there was a small increase of $50 million.
In 1952, the income of farmers was maintained in the whole of Canada but it
Interim Supply
decreased by $20 million in the province of Quebec.
In 1953, this decrease was $3 million in the province of Quebec.
In 1954, the decrease was $22 million in the province of Quebec; in 1955, a $228 million income; a decrease of $35 million in 1956, as compared to 1955. We see a decrease of income for the farmer from one year to another.
In 1962, the income was $179,668,000' as compared with $211 million in 1950. This is how the Quebec farmers are treated, while in 1950, in the whole of Canada, production was $1,200 million and in 1962, $1,630 million, that is an increase of $240 million over a period of 12 years.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that all members of the house will understand that the requests we make in the house on behalf of farmers, of farm organizations and of the family farm are justified.
The battle we have been fighting for three years on behalf of Quebec farmers is not the first to be staged. We have already had-


Auguste Choquette: We have fought too in our party.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Lot-biniere tells me he has fought too. I admit it, but we had a representative in the riding of Bellechasse who no longer sits in the house and who was a member of the Ralliement. He fought strongly to obtain feed grain for eastern farmers.
We are reading today the requests put forward by the Catholic farmers' union during their 40th annual convention.
They are as follows:
The Catholic farmers' union has therefore advocated the following policy as far as feed grain is concerned:
1.	That the union should protest vigorously with the federal government, following its inaction in this field, at a time when agriculture in eastern Canada is going through a critical stage; and
2.	That the federal government should take the necessary steps so as to:
(a)	Set up, throughout the country, the same farm cost price as regards feed grain;
We are not asking something for ourseleves but for the whole country, something that will assist agriculture as a whole.
(b)	Within the context of equalization of the cost price of feed grain in this country, to abolish immediately the free trade of feed grain in the west and thereafter entrust to the Canadian wheat board all the feed grain trade in the prairie provinces;
(c)	To create a feed grain board for eastern Canada with the following powers:

Interim Supply
1.	The application of an assistance policy for transportation;
This is a burden for eastern farmers.
2.	The application of an assistance policy for storage;
Such a policy is now carried out by the Liberal government as it was by the previous Conservative government for the storage of grain in western Canada.
3.	The storage of feed grain in public elevators in eastern Canada at the proper time and in sufficient quantities;
4.	Importation of feed grain in a period of scarcity; and
5.	The purchase, sale and distribution of feed grain in eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. [Translation]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for dinner, I was referring to a request from an organization recognized throughout Canada, the Catholic farmers' union. I was talking about section 5 of the request they presented at their 40th annual convention which was held recently.
Section 5 refers to the purchase, sale and distribution of feed grain in eastern Canada. I was then saying that Mr. Bernard Dumont, the former member of parliament for Belle-chasse, in 1962, on behalf of the farmers and the Catholic farmers' union, made a strong plea in favour of the distribution, sale and purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada.
The union states the following:
The policy of assistance to the transportation of feed grain should become statutory when the proposed board is created.
This matter of transportation was modified this year in order to help the farmers. We were very happy about this. However, together with the Catholic farmers' union, and in order to help it, we are requesting that the policy of assistance to transportation-by rail as well as by truck-be made statutory.
The particular problem which is raised in the province of Quebec and draws wide publicity is that of the dairy industry. On September 10, 1964, the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, made the following statement at the banquet of l'Ordre du merite agricole-he did not make the same
[Mr. Caouette.l
statement when 10,000 farmers marched on the Quebec legislative buildings-as reported by the daily newspaper Le Soleil in its September 10 issue:
-that one of the main characteristics of farm production in Quebec consists in its being too largely centred on dairy products.
Even if we should try to diversify or widen the field of farm activities in the province, the lack of outlets would prevent farmers from looking for sources other than that from which they derive their best income, and that is dairy production.
But when the premier of Quebec states that the dairy industry occupies too big a place in the province and that we should concern ourselves with something else, he is not quite of the same opinion as the president of the national council of the dairy industry, Mr. J. M. Hartwick, who said, at the annual meeting held at Murray Bay last September 9, and I quote:

"No acute shortage of dairy products is imminent'', he said, after warning that "this year in Canada we will not produce sufficient milk to meet the domestic and export demands for dairy products."

This statement was made in Murray Bay on September 9. This means evidently that the Quebec premier, even if he stated that in 1960 he did not have complete data on Quebec agricultural problems, is certainly ill-advised by his experts in 1964, when he suggests that dairy production is too high and that farmers should change or diversify their production to make it more profitable.
Mr. Chairman, dairy production in the province of Quebec decreased, in 1963, by 4 per cent. Yet, in such small provinces as Prince Edward Island, the same industry increased by 12 per cent; in Nova Scotia it remained stationary; in New Brunswick, 105 per cent, which represents an increase of 5 per cent as compared with 1962; in Ontario there has been a 3 per cent increase; in Manitoba, a decrease of 3 per cent; in Saskatchewan, an increase of 5 per cent; in Alberta, an increase of 8 per cent; in British Columbia, one of 3 per cent; and in Quebec, a decrease of 4 per cent. And now the premier of Quebec province tells us that the dairy industry is producing too much in that province.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture is very important to our province, as it is to all eastern Canada. We have statistical data which, from time to time, are handed to us by the various departments. The Minister of Agricul-

ture (Mr. Hays) and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), now responsible for ARDA, often refer to the French development program, what planning is done in France with a view to helping the farmers, etc.
In his speech to the Montreal economics association, on September 22 on the necessity of economic planning, the minister made a point of speaking about this French planning, using as an example its 15 years of experience. This is what the French minister of agriculture, Mr. Edgar Pisani, had to say in the October issue of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
We have chosen to encourage the widespread development of family farms-
In some places where farming is not profitable, farmers are paid to stay on the farm as a public service. We follow that policy, just like other countries. France does so and England also tries to do it. Other countries of the world try to keep farmers on the farm.
There are no community farms as suggested by the Minister of Forestry under his ARDA program, but rather family farms where farmers may enjoy the social security they are entitled to, like any other class of society. Thus, the farmer can live with his family as a human being can and must do in a country as great as Canada.
Yesterday I noticed that the hon. member for Lapointe mentioned in his remarks our capability to assist the countries of the world with the potential and the actual assets available to us in our own country. We simply ask for the Canadian people the same treatment as we provide for some countries of the world.
Some will object by saying: where are we going to get the money? For 30 years at least we have been expounding in this house the means of getting the money, of getting the new credit, that is, at the Bank of Canada by granting or giving an adjusted discount to the Canadian consumers, paid to the farmer or the producer in order to enable the consumers to further promote production. We have also asked, so that the farmers may market their products, for an increase in the consumers' purchasing power. We have talked about a national dividend distributed to each and everyone.
The Liberals and the Conservatives find that funny. However, during elections they make promises to farmers, but once the elections are over, they forget about the consumers they praised so much at election time.
Interim Supply


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They forget.


An hon. Member:: What are your promises?


David Réal Caouette: We promise to give justice instead of injustice.
Mr. Chairman, when we ask that finance be put at the service of the Canadian citizen, we hear immediately people talking loudly about demagogy, crying shame and the utopia of Social Credit without knowing its elementary principles. Those people do not even understand the application of the present system and they are dazzled by the light that hits them in the dark.
For many years Social Credit has offered solutions to the problems of agriculture, to the problems of workers, to all the problems facing the human person at all social levels.
Instead of laughing it off and turning it into ridicule, let us try to understand it. Let us see the situation as it is for the Canadian farmers and for all social classes.
There are unemployed people in all spheres of economic activity in our country, and here again we stumble on the same question, and on the same replies from government ministers: We have no money, we have no money, we have no money.
It is amusing, Mr. Chairman, to note how much faster the government acts when it is required to send Canadian soldiers to Cyprus or to take part in some extraterritorial war. Then, the monetary question has no importance and we find all the money needed to equip a whole army and completely eliminate unemployment in Canada. Why in peacetime, when everything has to be done over, roads, development of natural resources, etc., is everything so complicated? Why does not the Minister of Forestry, who is now sitting in front of us, suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) of this government to put at the disposal of his department the money needed to look after the development of our country's forest and other resources?
The whole matter boils down to the monetary question and the minister, instead of tackling that monetary question, would rather diversify the tasks and try all other solutions, try to enlist farmers in ARDA, try to enlist farmers in some other programs, try to enlist all classes of society in another field, try to nationalize medicine, nationalize this and that.
But the monetary system is not touched, that sacrosanct system is held in respect since confederation. And as soon as someone rises to protest against the abuses of that system, people try to ridicule him, instead of trying to understand what we are claiming, not for

Interim Supply
us, but for all the people and the citizens who make up Canada and who have built it.
Mr. Chairman, I see that my hon. friends of the Liberal party opposite think that is funny. But the question is always: Where could we get the money? Where did we get the money during the war? To whom do we owe the national debt of $23 billion on which we are paying over $1 billion in interest alone this year.
Let a Liberal member or a minister get to his feet to tell me how, with the present system, when the government borrows $100 million, it will be able to repay $200 million in 20 years, when only the chartered banks in Canada have the right to create the credit of the nation. Who can prove to me that the present monetary system can contribute to the development of our natural resources? The purpose of economics is not to provide employment but to satisfy all Canadians.
So let us fight against what prevents us from attaining this objective, in this case, the question of finance. Let us give to Canadians what belongs to them, Canada.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee to comment on a situation that has arisen in the Department of Transport. I am exceptionally pleased that the Acting Minister of Transport is here tonight; whether or not he is listening does not matter. I have complained in the past of the practice of granting monopoly franchises to the ground transport services at national airports such as Toronto, Dorval, Winnipeg and Vancouver and now the city of Ottawa.
On Friday last I received from the government a return airplane ticket to Toronto on the 4.55 flight. 1 want to show you some of the niceties that these monopolistic organizations can enforce upon individuals, and I wish to protest. The plane on which I was booked was to go at 4.55 p.m. I showed up at the Chateau Laurier hotel at 4.02, just 53 minutes before the plane leaves. I have always been told by T.C.A. to allow 50 minutes from the Chateau Laurier to the airport. When I arrived at the transport depot at 4.03 I was told the bus had already left for the airport and I was late. The time I was told was 4.07. The starter produced his wrist watch to show me, 4.07. I pointed to the peace tower and asked him if he paid any attention to the time on the peace tower clock. He said, "We go by my wrist watch, my friend." I 
said, "It is 4.03 and I am told by T.C.A. I am to allow 50 minutes for the transfer service."
At that moment a businessman came out of the Chateau Laurier and asked where the bus to the airport was. He was told it had gone. So I said to the starter of the Red Line that has this monopoly contract, "Here's another man that is here before 4.05 and your bus service has gone." I said to the businessman, "If you and I grab a cab together we will be able to split the $4 between us which the Red Line is trying to make out of each of us." The starter informed me that it would not cost $4 for a taxi, and I said, "I have paid it in past years."
I got into the cab with the businessman. The peace tower clock was reading 4.05 and just then another member of the house, not from this side, came swinging along with his bags. He also thought 50 minutes was all he needed to allow. I got out of the cab; I was now shilling for the Red Line. I said to this other member of parliament, "They are running this service on the wrist watch of the Red Line starter. The peace tower clock means nothing to them. Would you care to climb in with me?"
The second member of parliament got in and the three of us, two members of parliament and the businessman, rode out to the airport. The charge was $3.65. As the starter said, it would not be $4. However, normally when I am forced to ride single, I pay the taxi operator $4-35 cents for himself and $3.65 for the monopoly.
These monopoly contracts should be thrown open for public tender if they are going to continue monopoly practice, but I do not believe in the monopoly practice at all. This service should be open to every taxicab service in the city of Ottawa, and this applies to other communities across Canada.
Many of you may realize I have strong feelings on the liquor question. I am sorry that last week, in walking home up Bank street, for the first time in some years I saw a customer being ejected from a Bank street hotel. It was not any too pleasant a sight and a free-for-all fight developed on the corner. It was a little upsetting and the language was pretty vile.
I began to look for a policeman, as I often see these police cars going up and down the street, and as we always say, when you look for one there isn't one. However, in a couple of moments a police car came by. I hailed the chap and I said to him, "It is pretty rough at that ladies' entrance to the hotel one block

down the street. One chap"-I described him -"is the centre of the group, I think you should break it up." To my surprise the policeman whistled away faster than a Canada goose, and I thought to myself that this was a pretty funny thing for the Ottawa police department. Suddenly I realized, however, that no doubt this man was radioing for extra help. In 60 seconds there were four police cars there, the one with the officer I had spoken to, and three more police cars with two men in each, so that seven policemen stepped out at that hotel and the fight was broken up in a hurry.
I refer to this for one reason. The police cannot get in touch with each other any more quickly with the radio in their cars than can the taxicabs in Toronto, and all this balderdash shot about, that you have to give a monopoly contract to a cab firm to have 24 hour service to and from an airport is meaningless in this day and age when taxicabs can communicate with one another as speedily as police cars. If there is a cab shortage at an airport they can summon cabs through the radio-telephone system faster than you can say "Jack Robinson," which is an old time expression.
I do not believe in these monopoly practices in the letting of contracts. They should advertise if they are going to continue the monopoly, but there should be no monopoly. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to see that the clocks in the parliament buildings are set to keep in step with the wrist watch of the starter of the Red Line taxi cab company so that we will get to the airport at $1.10 instead of having to get a taxicab to the airport at $4.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, I will only speak a moment or two on the estimates before us.
Of course, I intend to be brief as far as the C.B.C. is concerned. I think it is superfluous at this time to discuss that matter, since a committee was set up for that purpose and will report to the house. When it does, it will then be in order to appoint a committee of the house to make the necessary recommendations.
I will not speak on monetary theories either, Mr. Chairman, because the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is quite familiar with such matters. As a matter of fact, during the last election he was saying that the money supply was $8 billion, while in fact it was $15 billion; he was making an
Interim Supply
error of $7 billion, a small mistake, for there are only 1,000 million in a billion.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I will deal today with a controversial matter. A commission was set up by the federal government and another one by the province of Quebec, to consider expenditures of the federal government. I think that one of the difficulties which the experts are up against, is that they are not aware of the way government expenditures are distributed among the provinces.
I have noted, since I became a member of parliament, that one of the flaws of this government-


Gilles Grégoire: There are many.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -this system-flaws which have been there for a long time-is that purchases are not centralized in the federal government.
If there were a sort of department of purchasing or supplies, we would have a better idea of the way in which government purchases are distributed among the provinces.
For instance, there exists in the United States a defence secretariat, a system which determines exactly, each year, how much money was spent in each state. Such information may be readily obtained there, whereas it is very difficult to get here.
That is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the government to centralize the purchases of all the departments in a single department, which would enable all the members to know if the distribution is done adequately throughout the country and in each of the provinces. Such centralization would also serve as a tool in the hands of the government to help some areas which sometimes suffer from economic stagnation.
If we were able to determine quickly what expenses are necessary for government purchases, we could, in some instances, depart from ordinary practices and direct the purchases so as to stimulate the economy of certain provinces.
These are the only remarks I wanted to make. I believe this would help clarify the situation and improve the present state of union in Canada.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to many of the speakers in this debate on interim supply, particularly those who have dealt with the operation and policy of the C.B.C. Despite the opinions expressed by the hon. member from Hali-

Interim Supply
fax (Mr. Regan) and some of his colleagues, who have felt that members of the opposition are wasting the time of parliament by bringing to the attention of the committee many of the complaints which we have received from our constituents about the operation of the C.B.C., I feel it is my duty and responsibility to bring some of these complaints to the attention of the government.
We have heard a fairly good discussion about some of the programming and financing of the corporation, and about the lack of extension of its services. This is one of the subjects I would like to mention briefly. I may say I am pleased to see there is not complete unanimity on the government side in relation to the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax. I was interested to listen to some of the criticism of the corporation which has been expressed by the hon. member for Cartier and on other occasions by the hon. member for York-Humber. No doubt we shall be hearing from those members on this subject in the future. It is primarily with regard to the extension of the services of the corporation that I should like to speak this evening.
It may surprise some people to hear that many of the complaints I have received are not solely with regard to the extension of the television service but are with regard to the extension of the C.B.C. radio service. In these days when television has become the accepted thing, some may not know that there are places not in the far north but in northern parts of provinces which do not yet have adequate C.B.C. radio coverage. The corporation knows this. I have spoken to its officials on many occasions and they have said for years that places such as Thompson and Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba do not as yet have adequate coverage in the field of C.B.C. radio. There are many more complaints with regard to television. This is simply because there are far more people in the area which I represent who do not have the advantage of television service than there are those who do not have the advantage of radio service. I might say at this juncture in regard to C.B.C. radio coverage in this area that there are two local stations affiliated with the C.B.C. and that at Churchill there is one C.B.C. station. We have had fairly good co-operation to some extent regarding requests for such things as a land line service to bring in such events as the world series this fall, and this has been 
greatly appreciated by the people. However it has been a long, hard battle to get these things, and for the station at Thompson this was the first opportunity to bring to the people of that area live broadcasts of a world series. A land line service is the only way in which the people can receive such broadcasts because the coverage of other stations carrying these broadcasts is not available.
At the present time parliament is being asked to grant a sum of money in the neighbourhood of $88 million to enable the corporation to carry on for the current year. One thing I feel is surprising is the fact that in these estimates there is no breakdown whatsoever of this figure. It is just a figure of $88 million and there is very limited explanation of how this huge sum of money is to be spent. Parliament never receives any accounting for this expenditure until the following year when the corporation puts out its annual report. We on this side of the house have repeatedly asked that the government convene a committee on broadcasting so that parliament might examine fully the affairs of the corporation. However we have not yet reached success. The government has not seen fit to set up such a committee, but its spokesmen have said that an advisory committee on broadcasting has been set up and this will be reporting some time in 1965. This may be so; but at the present time, long before this advisory committee is due to report, we are being asked to approve expenditures of $88 million. To me, this does not appear to be good business. Some of the financial commitments of the C.B.C. should certainly be open for inspection by members of this house. This subject was covered last night fairly well by my hon. friend from Edmonton West and again today by the hon. member for Calgary North who went into many aspects of C.B.C. finance. I shall have something to say about that matter in a moment or two.
One thing that interests me is the devious and conflicting way in which answers have been given to questions asked by members of the opposition in relation to the C.B.C. and its operations as well as to the setting up of a committee. The Secretary of State has said on many occasions that the C.B.C. must be entirely free from government interference. The hon. member for Halifax said the same last night. Both these hon. gentlemen said the government had no intention of interfering with the operations of the corporation. However, on August 6 I directed a question

to the Secretary of State based on reports which had come out to the effect that the C.B.C. was considering the expenditure of many millions of dollars for the consolidation of facilities in Toronto and Montreal, as opposed to the extension of the service to areas which are not now served. At that time I asked the Secretary of State whether the government would not take the necessary steps to set up a special committee on broadcasting so that parliament could be given an opportunity to study this very serious situation. It is interesting to note the answer given by the Secretary of State at that time. He said he had not seen the report referred to but all he could say was that there had been no government decision. This indicated to me that either the government intended to make the decision whether this money would be spent, or they had not yet done so. And as I said, at other times when we bring our complaints to the attention of the Secretary of State and of the government they advise us that they are in no position to interfere in any way with the affairs of the corporation. Then again, on October 6, I directed a question to the minister asking him whether the government would direct the corporation to prepare an up to date report, an up to date study, in relation to the extension of services. At that time the question was taken as notice. On October 21 I asked whether the government had a reply to give me and I was told by the Secretary of State that a decision with regard to the extension of service or alternate services would not be made until the advisory committee on broadcasting had presented its report, which it was hoped would be early in 1965.
So we get back to this question of a committee set up by the government as opposed to a committee consisting of members of this house to look into all aspects of broadcasting. I know there is a great deal of merit attached to the setting up of an advisory committee. That committee will, no doubt, come up with a report which will be of great value to parliament. However, we would like to have been able to look into some of these aspects of the corporation's affairs before being obliged to approve these large expenditures. As things stand, the areas which are not now served can more or less sit back and accept the position that nothing whatsoever is to be done with respect to providing services until this advisory committee on broadcasting reports to the government or to the corporation or to whomever they are going to report.
Interim Supply
Looking at the annual report of the corporation for the year 1963-64, first of all I would like to point out some of the purposes of the corporation as set out in the Broadcasting Act. One of them, as acknowledged by the corporation itself, is:
To be a complete service, covering in fair proportion the whole range of programming; bringing things of interest, value, and entertainment to-people of all tastes, ages, and interests, and not concentrating on some aspects of broadcasting to. the exclusion of others.
To link all parts of the country in two ways: (1) through the inclusion of a wide variety of national and common interests in its program services; (2) by using its physical resources to bring the national program service to as many Canadians as finances allow. Whether Canadians live in remote or heavily populated areas the national system should serve them as adequately and equitably as-possible.
These sound like very interesting and commendable words until we look into the question of finances, as mentioned earlier today by the hon. member for Calgary North. However, let us look at what the corporation has to do, in regard to their views on the extension of services. We find here, under "Coverage policy":
At the present time the corporation's planning and radio takes into account all areas of Canada; with a population of more than 500 which could be served by one transmitter. In television because of higher costs, the minimum population figure is 2,000. All areas which, on the basis of the latest available d.b.s. figures, have this many people are-entered on the corporation's planning lists. At this present time there are approximately 122 communities on the radio planning list and about 00 on the television list. The possibility of bringing service to each of these areas and the costs involved have been given preliminary study and priorities established.
Here is another reason why we have wanted the government to set up this committee on-broadcasting-so we could in some way find out from the corporation just what this priority list looks like; because I am sure that members of this house whose areas are not serviced adequately by television and radio would be very interested, and the people they represent would be particularly interested,, in having some idea of the priorities of the corporation. In their annual report the corporation goes on to say:
The system of priorities outlined above has-been followed by C.B.C. for some years and is in line with the proportion of the over-all budget which it is felt can be devoted to this aspect of development. On this basis it is clear that the needs of these communities cannot all be met at once without seriously neglecting other phases of the national service. In fact, at the present rate, the communities mentioned above will not all be served: for perhaps ten years.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning the administration of justice.
I want to take advantage of this preliminary remark to point out that if all members could do their utmost to summarize their thoughts, to synthesize their remarks, we could save a lot of time. Some members speak at length nothing but absolute nonsense. I think we could synthesize our ideas. That is what I intend to do tonight in dealing with the matter of justice.
Mr. Chairman, the respect of justice, of the judicial institutions and of those whose duty it is to interpret and administer the law, is a categorical imperative in every well organized society.
When the reputation of justice or of those whose duty it is to administer justice, is compromised, anarchy is liable to develop.
We have been recently aware of events where the integrity of the judicature has been impaired.
One has only to remember, Mr. Chairman, the Coffin case to confine to oblivion events which it is preferable not to mention.
I believe that our judicial system ranks above that of our neighbours to the south, since in Canada, none of those exercising judiciary functions have to be elected to do so.
However, it is obvious, whether we like it or not, that since confederation the appointment of judges has too often, unfortunately, been an instrument of patronage.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that our courts, and more particularly our superior courts, should be above all reproach as far as their efficiency and integrity are concerned. That is the reason I advocate, concerning the appointment of superior court justices, a special piece of legislation which would include strict provisions and require, as an obligation, consultations with the bar association and the bench of the provinces where appointments are to be made. In my opinion, every province-and this should be done upon the initiative of the federal government-should have a committee of the bar association and a committee of high ranking judges which would look into and oversee the appointment of judges. I believe that, should this committee of the bar association and the committee of high ranking judges, whose creation I suggest and which would be advisory bodies, object to the appointment of a certain lawyer to the bench, then the minister of justice would have to consider this opposition as a

Interim Supply
right o 1 veto. This would prevent the appointment of judges who do not possess the qualifications required to fulfil their duties.
Mr. Chairman, by all means we must reestablish the prestige and integrity of the bench. There must be an end to this system of giving sole consideration to partisanship. The appointment of judges should be based on standards of competence and integrity and not solely on partisanship considerations. Let us restore the prestige of justice and the prestige of those who administer justice. We must strengthen the people's confidence in the administration of justice, a confidence which has been shaken by incidents better left unmentioned.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to participate in the debate this evening because of some additional points that have been brought forward by some other members of the house although I also wish to say a few words about the subject which has been foremost in the discussion, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Possibly I might be quite remiss if I did not say in my initial remarks that as one of those in the official opposition who have been labelled by a certain journalist as being in a certain category I am not endeavouring to measure up to any mark, but words have been spoken today about sensationalism and with the greatest of restraint I must say it sometimes puts fear in my heart when I hear people who are considered prominent in the journalistic field acting so irresponsibly, while at the same time trying to charge other people with irresponsibility.


Mr. Nesbitt:: That guy is just a nut.


Eric Alfred Winkler: This bothers me somewhat, of course, but I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the house will see fit to bear with me this evening and consider that my contribution is indeed a responsible one. The hon. member for Lotbiniere referred to his philosophy with regard to the appointment of judges, but surely he has sufficient confidence in the federal Minister of Justice that he would not think the minister would need support or, if he needed it, would not consult with the provincial authorities in regard to appointments of this type. If he has a condemnation to make of the system, I wonder if he is making that condemnation in regard to appointments which he regrets were made by older people other than himself and the present government.
I also listened with great interest to the hon. member for York-Humber. Indeed I
[Mr. Choquette.j
expected other comments from that hon. member this evening, because if my memory is correct he has a case against the C.B.C. before the courts at the present time. Before this debate ends I should like to hear from the hon. member for York-Humber with regard to his feelings about the C.B.C., particularly in the light of the charges he has made. I think he could make a valuable contribution to the debate at this time, and I do not say that in a derogatory fashion, because the subject is certainly topical. I think he could make a worth-while and, in fact, necessary contribution. I hope the hon. member for York-Humber will see fit to let us have the benefit of his wisdom in regard to this question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, may I assure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that I will give him a statement tomorrow in the house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: These are words of great comfort, and we will look forward to his contribution to the debate. I should also like to refer to the contribution made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche in which he referred to what he said was the anomaly in the method of purchasing by the federal government. He referred to the government generally, but I presume he had the C.B.C. in mind particularly. However, he went on to make some remarks with regard to eastern feed grain policy, and this is a subject about which I wish to say something. I realized that it might not be possible for me to do so at any other time prior to the conclusion of this session, although at the present rate of progress one cannot say for sure. There is a very serious problem in regard to eastern agriculture and certainly the feed grain policy is part of that problem.
One of my main reasons for participating in the debate is that I have before me a letter I received from a farmer in my constituency. I must say immediately that the letter is not written from any political point of view. I could read the entire letter into the record but I do not think that is necessary. It is necessary, however, for me to refer to certain facts contained in it. I know this farmer very well. I know what his previous political affiliation was. I do not know whether he is still of the same mind in that regard but certainly he was not a supporter of mine. In his letter he has this to say:
I have 200 acres and am in mixed farming. First, let us look at the beef situation. I bought 50 good western steer calves last winter for 242 cents per pound, figuring I got a good buy. They cost me on an average of $145 each. After feeding them for nine months, if X sold them now

I would probably make $25 a piece. I have no choice but to stable these cattle and buy corn and concentrate and finish them and hope the price goes up. At today's prices the banker will have more money out of them than I will.
I shipped eight good shorthorn heifers this fall and the price I got ranged from 18 cents to 20 cents in Toronto. It is a long time since cattle have been below 20 cents per pound.
Let's take a look at hogs. A few years back we got between $50 and $60 per pig with hog grower at $45 per ton. Today we get around $40 per pig and pay $78 per ton for feed. Buy a pig at $12 and feed it 700 pounds of feed at that price and you see what your profit is.
Now for poultry, the real moneymakers. I keep 40 hens. We got 23 to 25 cents per dozen most of the summer for eggs. The government is giving us a deficiency payment on the three top grades of eggs, but what about the lower grades? It costs just as much to produce those small eggs as the large ones. How are you going to make a hen lay all large eggs?
I house my pullets and wanted to sell the year old hens. All I could get for these birds was 5 cents per pound. A four pound hen would bring 20 cents. With prices like this and the high cost of labour, machinery, taxes, (etc.), which you know as much about as I do, how in the world is the farmer going to exist?
Now, listen to this, Mr. Chairman:
Surely, our Minister of Agriculture and farmer members must realize this, or are they all millionaires?
We know that is not the case, of course; but it seems so to the average farmer in eastern Canada.
I hope you will present this situation to whom it may concern, and trust that something will be done before the small farmer falls by the wayside.
Now, Mr. Chairman, perhaps this does not seem very important in the course of this debate. I do want to get to the C.B.C. before I conclude, but the important thing is that this question was raised this evening and I took advantage of the opportunity presented to me. I want to say this to you, Mr. Chairman, and members who are present in the house this evening, that ever since the Conservative government left office all that has happened to the eastern farm prices has been that they have gone down, down, and down, and the costs of operation for the eastern farmer have gone up, up and up. If you do not believe me, ask the man who wrote this letter-and I can tell you he has never been a supporter of mine. Ask my hon. friends across the way and see if the situation is not precisely the same in their areas.
I know there are members like the hon. member for York-Scarborough who talks about rural tyranny. Where is the rural tyranny? Is it from these millionaire farmers? Is it from the representatives they have in this house? The hon. member spoke in glow-20220- 601J
Interim Supply
ing terms of how one member can represent more people in a rural area. Of what use is it to represent rural people if the government brings forth nothing but policies to destroy these people? Have they no place in our economy? Are they finished? What is the future for them? It is a very dull outlook so far as I am concerned. I am sure the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche knows this is true in his part of the country as well. There is no argument across this country because when you bring people together on common ground you will find that they encounter the same problems in connection with this government. I do not know what the policy is, but the closest we got to it tonight was a little word about feed grain. I am grateful to the hon. member for bringing it up.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Never at any time have I referred to feed grain, as the hon. member is saying now. Of course, he should have paid more attention to my remarks. I only spoke of purchases being centralized in a single body. I never referred to the grain problem, where the situation has greatly improved under the present government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Well, there is no question about it; if you did not talk about it, you should have.


Maurice John Moreau: Is the hon. member aware that when I was referring to rural tyranny I was not referring to rural tyranny as practised by the small farmer, but rather to rural tyranny as practised by the hon. member.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not know what is inherent in those words, but I can tell you they are very weak. I hope my hon. friend-or perhaps he is not so honourable-reads the Toronto Star, and looks at those words tomorrow, to see who is the more responsible. I will let him be the judge.
I am thinking also this evening of the words expressed by the hon. member for Verdun. I regret that it is all too seldom there is some recognition on the opposite side of the house when the truth is spoken by members about the area they represent, and particularly about the problems with which we are faced today. I think the hon. member for Verdun did a very commendable job this evening in presenting a sane, fundamental argument with regard to the problem that is

Interim Supply
before us. He did not over-emphasize it; he did not underscore it. He did not make it a sensational thing, he just brought the seriousness of it to the attention of the house. I feel that perhaps, in so far as this problem is concerned, this is the approach that we should take. I say again that I am pleased the hon. member for Verdun made that contribution this evening. There are no bricks in this bouquet. Up until this time I have not heard any words in connection with this problem from members across the way, with the exception of the hon. member for Villeneuve. I hold in my hand a newspaper report of his comments. In my opinion therefore this is the first time a government member has risen to place the problem squarely before us in a responsible manner, and for this we must be grateful to him.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will turn to the matter of the C.B.C. It may be that the C.B.C. has been discussed at length. This evening the hon. member for Lotbiniere made some remarks about wasting time. As a matter of fact the hon. member has spoken twice in this debate, but that is of no concern to me. I am grateful for the contributions that have come from Liberal benches. I know hon. members feel as sincerely as we do about this matter because the people we represent are no different from the people they represent. Since when are we wasting time when we, as members of parliament, discuss the estimates of the C.B.C.?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Would the hon. member agree that those estimates are not before the committee now?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I agree, Mr. Chairman; the estimates are certainly not before the committee right now. Surely it is our privilege to discuss this specific question, the budget of the C.B.C. I beg your pardon, sir, if you want to be technical; I meant the budget and not the estimates. This evening the minister is becoming very technical, and I regret this fact. If we have no right to discuss the expenditure of $100 million of Canadian taxpayers' money by the C.B.C., then I think there is something wrong with the duty which has been imposed upon us.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member
permit a question? The point I was making clear was that this is not the point at which to discuss the item. Of course it is an important item and properly discussable, but it is properly discussable during consideration of the estimates of the department.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We have never seen them.


Mr. Olson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister says the C.B.C. estimates are not before us at this time.


George James McIlraith: This is right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask him if two twelfths of the amount for the C.B.C. is not before us in paragraph (a) of the resolution, amounting to $14,316,666? Does not two twelfths of that item include part of the C.B.C. estimates?


George James McIlraith: No, what is before the committee now is whether or not the government should be given permission to expend two twelfths of the amount of supply-there are one or two minor exceptions to that percentage-pending parliament's discussion in detail of each one of the estimates and everything related to them. If hon. members are interested in following it, this is the reason the commitment is always given when interim supply is presented to the house, that the passage of this interim supply will not in any way limit or abridge the right to discuss the item when the estimates are called. Therefore even if twelve twelfths were passed in the interim supply bill, parliament would still retain its right to discuss the matter fully and debate it at the appropriate time on the estimates. That is the point I wish to make.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Probably the minister is quite right. We on this side will bear that in mind when the estimates of the Secretary of State come before us. But I wonder if the minister bore that in mind when he sat on this side?


George James McIlraith: Yes he did, and I will tell you what he did discuss. I have all the statistics here on what the opposition of that day did and the number of days it took on interim supply. The sort of thing that opposition discussed was grievances against administration. One of the major ones was the failure of the then government to bring down a budget for the house to consider.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is better in some cases not to bring budgets down than to produce something of the sort we have had. But I think the minister put his finger on the nub of the matter. This is something that is important to the present administration and I do not think he can argue that the matter before the committee is out of order.

I have here quotations that were supplied to me by the hon. member for Grey North, but before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to take note of the lengthy interjections during my humble intervention. As I say, I have been supplied with some valuable quotations by the hon. member for Grey North who, because of very serious family matters regrettably could not be with us today. Otherwise he would place these on the record himself. However, I must tell the minister I would be ashamed to read these quotations into Hansard, so that they could be on the record. They are quotations from a C.B.C. program of about two weeks ago, which I think was one of the lowest things ever to come across the air waves.
It is not for me to say, as has been repeated so many times during the last few days, that members of parliament should not be concerned with programming. Maybe this is so. I do not believe it is quite the case, but maybe these other members are right. They may be more accurate than I in this regard, but I do say the time has come for the expenditures of the C.B.C. to be placed before parliament each and every year, the same as the expenditures of any ministry, not for the purpose of considering programming but for the purpose of considering the expenditures themselves.
We have received a large number of letters from good, sound, sensible, Canadian families. They have sent letters to their respective members of parliament, and these people are burdened with the expenditure of $100 million a year for something that they deplore. When that happens there is something wrong with our system. If that is not so, then probably I am wrong in being on the floor or occupying my seat, but I believe we should stand up for the people who object to the money the government spends through the C.B.C.
Incidentally I do not always have the opportunity to listen to all the broadcasts of the C.B.C., but I have not heard the C.B.C. say one word today about the objections that have been raised here. Do the orders for this type of attitude come from the top? I do not believe these attitudes originate below the top level. They originate with the policy people, and it is not fair enough for anyone on the other side of the chamber to reply, "You appointed these men who have the authority. Why don't they act?"
The point is that if the Canadian taxpayers have a problem surely they have the right, through their duly elected members, to place their objection before the authority concerned.
Interim Supply
I venture to say that if the truth were known the budgets and the expenditures of the C.B.C. that appear before us are much greater than we actually see because I believe-I might be wrong here-that there is not a division between the capital and operating budgets of the C.B.C., and I believe this should be made available to parliament.
As I said previously, this type of expenditure by an agency of the government should be examined by members of parliament, the same as the expenditures of any other government department. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to rise in his place and say to me, "I will take this as notice and bring it to the attention of the president of the C.B.C." I certainly do not feel I have the qualifications to stand in judgment on matters in regard to programming, but again I say I have quotations here that I would be ashamed to place on the record of parliament; yet these things were broadcast to Canadian t.v. viewers not two weeks ago.
Do we pay these people to give us an uplift in our society? It was stated by the hon. member for Churchill that the philosophy in programming is one of interest, value and entertainment. If it is of interest and value, do we make our people look down instead of up? Are the traditional teachings of family life in Canada to be cast aside? Are we to make our young people think that the things which are held dear in decent family life should be mocked and are in fact wrong? If they are wrong then I think somebody should tell us the whole world is wrong, because we have been revolving around the concept of a basic family unit and the things people hold true in their homes.
Is it any wonder we have trouble in our universities, with the movements that fly off to the left, when we are given leadership such as this and our young people can see it for what it is? These new things then become commonplace and are considered commonplace. I believe the words that were spoken last evening by the hon. member for Northwest Territories were quite correct. I believe the adjectives and the terms he used were correct.
It is not within the competence of any one group, acting as an agency of the government, to take a unilateral position on the type of entertainment to be shown to the public. Consequently the only way we can have this matter properly reviewed and considered is through a committee. Once again I suggest that such a committee be empowered to review both the operating and capital ex-

Interim Supply
penditures of the C.B.C. from year to year, the same as with any other ministry of the government.


Mr. Regan:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member specifically in his remarks takes exception to the programming and then suggests a committee to review the expenditure. What is he suggesting specifically? Would he suggest, if the minister was to be placed specifically in charge of the C.B.C., as he is in charge of a department-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would he suggest that each program before it was shown on the air should be censored and examined by the minister? Is he suggesting that if a program goes on that the minister does not fully approve, the next day the full executive of the C.B.C. should be fired? How specifically would the hon. member's proposal apply?


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I were to place the hon. member in charge of the C.B.C. he would be in charge of comedy; it would eliminate the entire problem. I would say this to him. We only learn in this particular field by the experience we have had. I believe the present situation of control at the top in C.B.C. has been created possibly by a previous parliamentary committee, where a certain fear existed in the areas of authority of the C.B.C. I am told that people come to their offices today and wonder what they are supposed to do-people in the administration-simply because one man has his hand on the valve at the top. One man has this control of the C.B.C. I say to the hon. member that these estimates are the only way members of parliament can get at the corporation in regard to the representations that are made to us. I hold this in front of the committee again. If we are to get at it for the benefit of Canadians and our constituents, this is the way it is going to be done. We shall only work out a system with regard to the programs and of knowing who the people should be that direct the affairs-


An hon. Member:: How?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am saying right now that the people at the top are wrong.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Then should we not have new directors?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Maybe they should be
changed. What do we get from the Secretary of State? He says he will take notice of our

questions and they will be sent on to the president of the C.B.C. He writes back. We have had hundreds of similar answers: "The matter will be taken under consideration." That is about what happens, and it is not the answer. I will inform hon. members by saying that I do not think there is any man in the administration of the C.B.C. who would not listen if we had him before the committee and I read these out to him-as I would do if he were here tonight. But I will not read them and put them on the record of parliament because they are too base, too vile. However, I would certainly read them if he were here, and any man with an ounce of common sense would know he was wrong.


An hon. Member:: Is this not a call for a change of directors?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: I was about to congratulate the hon. member for Grey-Bruce for having completed his remarks within the time allotted to him, without an interruption. I permitted a question. It was a long question and there was a long answer, and I think we should now call on the next speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order; a few minutes ago the President of the Privy Council maintained that the estimates of the C.B.C. were not before us. On page 54 of the main estimates which were given to all members earlier in the session there is an item, vote 1, in the amount of $85,900,000. Then the first paragraph of the resolution before the committee this evening includes these words:
(a) two twelfths of the total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965-
Then there are some exceptions; but the C.B.C. is not included in any of those exceptions. The government is asking for two twelfths of this $85,900,000 mentioned in the main estimates; that is, if my arithmetic is correct, $14,316,000. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would agree that by passing this resolution we do in fact grant that much money to the C.B.C. for its operations and therefore, at least to this extent the estimates of the C.B.C. are before the committee.


George James McIlraith: If that is a question directed to me, let me say I would agree that the committee does authorize the government to make this advance, but I would also point out to the hon. member that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, were passed many

weeks ago, yet he will find a reference to them in the resolution as well.


Donald Cameron: I do not intend to make any ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member. If it should be necessary the chairman will make a ruling upon his return. It would seem to me, however, that the discussion so far has been in order, and if I were to make a ruling that would be my ruling.


Mr. Otto:: I am glad you made that ruling, Mr. Chairman. This seems to be a take-a-whack-at-the-C.B.C.-week, and I do not want to change the topic. However, I do not intend to take a whack at the C.B.C. although I think you will recognize, Mr. Chairman as most members will, that there must be something wrong with the C.B.C. to have aroused the ire of so many members of this house.


An hon. Member:: On all sides.


Steven Otto: On some sides and in some corners of this house. After all, what can you expect when you have a body which is really not responsible to anyone? It is no more the fault of members on this side than of members on the other. I recall listening to my hon. friend from York-Humber about a month ago when he spoke about the origin of the C.B.C. and the wonderful work it had done at that time. Since those days the needs of the country have changed and the C.B.C. has changed, but because there is a lack of communication of responsibility between the C.B.C. and the shareholders, who are the people of Canada, is it any wonder that some problems arise? As to programming, I do not think anyone in this house would venture to say that he would take the responsibility for programming although, like everyone here, I like to see whether I am getting my money's worth.
During the dinner hour I went through the weekly programs of Toronto television stations. Members may recall we have channel six, which is the C.B.C.; then we have two others, nine and eleven, one of which is in Hamilton. They are private stations. I averaged out the private stations, the two of them, and the C.B.C. station and I more or less designated the programs into certain areas such as drama, variety, public affairs, and so on and we find that at the end of the week the C.B.C. did provide two hours more of drama than went out from the other stations, or the average of both of them; it provided three and a half hours more of imported programs such as Beverly Hillbillies and so on. It put out another three and a
Interim Supply
half hours extra of local variety programs, another nine and a half hours of sport programs, an extra four hours of public affairs, and three extra hours of educational programs. And that is what the corporation has done. I doubt the value of the imported programs.
The question which comes to my mind is: Is that worth $1,500,000? Is it worth as much money as we are paying out-roughly $2 million a week? Granted, all these programs are very good, very beneficial-drama, education, and so on. But is it worth $2 million? For this reason I cannot see anything wrong with either a committee or any other body studying the whole concept of the C.B.C.
Is it still in the interest of the nation to have the C.B.C. decide by itself what is to be the cultural destiny of this nation? Are they fulfilling the function they are supposed to fulfil? Can it not be done by private television? Could it be possible that the C.B.C. should not be in competitive television, or in the business of trying to make money at television? All these questions could be decided by either such a committee, or a very deep study as to what terms of reference we are going to give the C.B.C. from now on. It is not enough to stand up in this house and say, "The C.B.C. did such and such. The program was wrong. We want to control this," or, "we want to control that". I believe we have to go deeper; we have to find out what is the future of public broadcasting. Is it still necessary? How much of it is necessary? In what direction will it go? I believe this should be a subject of detailed study by a committee and I urge the government to take into consideration the requests that have been made for the seting up of a committee to study the whole problem of the C.B.C., or public broadcasting in its entirety.


Mr. Webster:: Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable discussion of the C.B.C. during the past two days. Most hon. members have been critical of this crown corporation. However, a great deal of the criticism has been constructive and justifiable. Especially has this been true of the remarks today of the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Churchill. There are also many others who are appreciative of the work of this important national service.
I think it is interesting to recall the early stages or the beginnings of television in Canada. A late prime minister, R. B. Bennett, said in this House of Commons in 1932:
This country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian

Interim Supply
sources, free from foreign interference or influence, No other system than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting.
The Liberal opposition wholly endorsed this view and the act of 1932 was adopted without a single dissenting voice. Throughout the years this great national service has developed in many directions. As we examine the C.B.C. we should in fairness remind ourselves of its admitted achievements. I wish to summarize briefly five areas of interest and accomplishment.
1.	Both radio and television programs are presented daily to Canadian listeners and viewers in both English and French.
2.	A great variety of attractions is provided, from popular sports and entertainment to public affairs and grand opera. The high standard of these programs is recognized annually by C.B.C.'s success in receiving an impressive series of awards in competition with American networks.
3.	The C.B.C. provides a rare opportunity for the training and employment of musicians, artists, writers and commentators; not just a few in Toronto and Montreal but approximately 20,000 across Canada at the many production points. In one year approximately $16 million is paid to these talented people.
4.	The C.B.C. helped to create Canada's image to the world by operating the international service; broadcasting by radio to a hundred countries in a dozen languages. Program offices are maintained in London, Paris and New York.
5.	Free time on radio and television has been allocated to all political parties during and between election campaigns. This policy of using public funds to prepare the electorate for voting day has been widely appreciated.
Over the past 30 years there have been three royal commissions and 14 parliamentary committees which have all been charged with the responsibility of having a good look at the C.B.C. Each of these commissions and committees has arrived at the same conclusion; that Canadians want a national broadcasting service and they want it to be of a high standard. The most recent examination of the administration was made by the Fowler commission in 1957, which concluded its report with these words:
We must be prepared to spend public money in quite large quantities. The Canadian economy is just not big enough to support a broadcasting system on commercial resources alone. At least it would not be one we would want to have or one that would be anything more than the

scattered outposts of American networks. The central factor in a Canadian system is the C.B.C. supported by money out of the public treasury for both its capital and operating needs.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend
to offer any vigorous criticism of the C.B.C. tonight, except to offer a word of caution to them. I think they must have recognized by now that the people of Canada are in fact alarmed about some of their programs. I am not one who has been too disappointed with the C.B.C. I think some of their programs are excellent; they compare very favourably with any t.v. programs in our modern western world. But I think the least they could do would be to give warning and state that these controversial subjects are going to be broadcast, so that at least those parents who have any control over the television in their homes-and most of us still have some-could encourage their children to look at something else.
I think some of these programs are educational and the motives behind putting them on are not pornographic or even to be very sensational. However, Mr. Chairman, I believe some care should be taken to make sure they are screened to the extent that they are not suddenly forced upon us in the middle of family viewing. If this is beyond the intelligence of the C.B.C. perhaps we will have to institute some form of screening. I am afraid of anything approaching government interference in this regard; in fact my main complaint about the C.B.C. is the fact that in our efforts to put them above interference we have made it possible for some people to use this medium as a very definite channel of political propaganda. 1 do not use the word "propaganda" accidentally, because I think it is an abuse of our privileges and freedoms when a member of any party can get on the air and give very, very controversial views and ideas, unless there is at least some balance, some opportunity for opposition to it if another party wishes to refute it at the time it should be refuted, which is right away. If you get on the air and give a lengthy statement on any subject, you can never withdraw it; it has gone out to the four corners of the country and it is impossible to undo the damage by merely saying a day or two later that you did not mean it, or something like that.

If on the particular program itself-and we have had some very good arguments brought before the public-views are expressed by all parties through representatives on the program, I think this is educational and should not be stopped. But the idea of using the air waves, especially at the expense of the taxpayer, to brainwash people is an abuse of our freedom which I for one am certainly dead against. That is my main criticism of the actual programming of the C.B.C.
I have another complaint to make. I do not think it is fair to spend all the taxpayers' money in one particular city. If we construct buildings in Montreal or Toronto costing $45 or $60 million it is going to be hard to sell the idea to the people living in sparsely populated areas that we are not putting all our eggs in one basket. As I said before I think C.B.C. programs are good but there are still many people in Canada not receiving them.
Therefore I should like to see the C.B.C. budget their expenditures, first of all to try to provide coverage to everyone in Canada before we go into the super luxury field. I think that $45 million or $60 million spent on one building is providing perhaps a little too much luxury for us at this particular stage. I am only giving an amateur's opinion of course; but the people in my sparsely populated district are not adequately covered by the C.B.C.
In view of the fact we are on interim supply I should like at this point to make a general complaint. I do not think that the members of this house are consulted enough in matters affecting their own ridings. If in the past governments have refused to consult with members of parliament this is a mistake, and let us not duplicate the mistakes of the past. For example, at the present time western Canada is largely represented in this house by the members of one party. Are we to ignore forever the needs of the people in the rural areas of western Canada merely because they are represented by only one party? To say that that is the way R. B. Bennett or Mackenzie King did it is not good enough for 1964.
We are being criticized both in the press and on television for not doing our job. If that is true it is because we are not keeping up with the problems of the day, problems which are new. We require greater co-operation and the government in power, particularly when it is a minority government, should be only too pleased to ask our opinion 20220-602
Interim Supply
on matters. We cannot force them to do this but we do represent a cross section of the people; and as the present government only represents only one third of the constituencies in Canada surely something would be gained from consultation.
Some hon. members have suggested changing our committees system. We are now in committee of the whole, and I would suggest to this government that they or any other government which might take over might well use the intelligence and well thought out planning of other party members to enrich the life of our nation.
In the northern part of Alberta the C.B.C. are trying to set up booster stations to supply some television coverage, following along the line I have suggested of providing more coverage for our people before spending most of our money in one particular area. The rumour I have heard-it is only a rumour; I have had no official notice of this-is that a booster station will be erected at Slave Lake, northern Alberta. There is already a good booster station at Grande Prairie. This will cause overlapping of service, with double coverage in the Peace River area in the west end of my district and very little coverage in the central or eastern part. In cases like this a little consultation might have helped. If this station were constructed in the town of Athabasca rather than Slave Lake twice the area would be covered. The areas already covered would not suffer at all and television service would be provided to another 20,000 people who need it badly. It is probably the only television station they can tune into. I submit this is a fair way to spend some money; it is using it wisely and spending it where it will do the most good.
Not only in C.B.C. matters but also on agricultural questions and in other departments I think hon. gentlemen opposite could well use the information and the local knowledge which we have and which we are only too willing to give. I would even suggest that the government should not be allowed to spend more than $5,000 in any hon. member's constituency without first warning that hon. member. Then if he is not to be in any way affected by the administration of that money he should certainly have the right to say what he knows about the local conditions, and an alert government would be glad to hear it.
I have mentioned this before in matters affecting the post office. I do not think that anyone would want to deny people the proper delivery of Her Majesty's mails, yet during the

Interim Supply
last 18 months I have never been consulted on the postal requirements in my district in any shape or form. I am not at all satisfied with the excuse that R. B. Bennett did not do it so this government will not do it. If that sort of thing took place there would be no progress whatever. This same reply has been given on more than one occasion. It is said that ministers 20 years ago did not answer questions so these ministers are not answering them.
This gives credence to the criticisms we are getting. I would warn the Liberal party that this sort of criticism usually comes from the longhairs or splinter parties. I think it would be a good idea if we smartened up and gave the kind of leadership which the two old parties are better qualified to give.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too late.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You can tell from the heckling, Mr. Chairman, that I am drawing some blood down there in the corner. They know what I am saying is true. There is a long and arduous campaign to discredit the older parties so as to assist one particular group of members in the house, and we all know who they are. They are members who never make a positive contribution themselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The handout programs are always their remedy because they do not have to raise the money. It is easy to ride the white horse when you do not have responsibility. In the six years I have been here I have never heard these people make any suggestions concerning how to raise more money. Their free money or give-away programs will never accomplish this. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: I should like to ask the acting house leader whether the government intends to continue tomorrow the discussion on interim supply.


Mr. MacNaughf:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will continue this discussion of interim supply, and when that is completed we will take up main estimates, departments of citizenship and immigration, forestry and national revenue.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa 4, October 23, 1964.
Dear Sirs:
This will acknowledge with thanks your telegram of October 21, referring to Bill C-126, an act respecting hours of work and minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings, and businesses.
At the present time this bill is being reviewed carefully by a committee of the
whole house. The effect of the legislation on various industries within the federal jurisdiction, including the trucking and cartage industry, is now being closely examined. I can assure you that your representations in this connection will be carefully considered.
Yours sincerely,
Allan J. MacEachen Manitoba Trucking Association,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
20220-602J
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, Ociober 28, 1964