1964-10-26

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, over the week end the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Harold Wilson, advised me in advance of the special economic measures announced in Britain earlier today. The Minister of Finance received a supplementary message from Mr. Callaghan, the chancellor of the exchequer.
The British government, on the basis of a review of Britain's present financial and economic situation, particularly the current and prospective balance of payments deficit, has concluded that in addition to a number of internal measures designed to increase productivity and measures to encourage exports, immediate steps were necessary to reduce imports from all sources.
Accordingly the British government has decided to levy a temporary import charge of 15 per cent on imports other than-and the exceptions are very important for us- foodstuffs, basic raw materials, and unmanufactured tobacco. The exceptions, Mr. Speaker, are very important for us covering as they do a large proportion of our exports to the United Kingdom. No detail is as yet available as to the specific impact of this new charge on particular Canadian exports. However, it appears that in general it will apply to Canadian manufacturers. We are awaiting further information concerning the applicability of the charge to Canadian semimanufactured materials.
It is important to note that the new charge will apply to imports from all sources. Moreover, existing margins of tariff preference will not be altered. Mr. Wilson has told me how much he regrets that it has been necessary to impose charges on certain imports from the commonwealth, but Britain's nondiscriminatory obligations and the urgency of the situation left him no alternative. He has assured me that the new charges are essentially temporary and will be reduced as soon as the balance of payments situation 20220-5954
permits and abolished at the earliest opportunity. The British government will maintain the existing parity of sterling. Mr. Wilson has indicated that in this connection ample facilities are available for the support of sterling. Britain, Mr. Speaker, is Canada's second most important market and we value highly our trading relations with her. Britain's economic strength is important to Canada and to the rest of the world.
I have expressed our hope that the combination of measures introduced by Britain will result in the speedy restoration of balance of payments equilibrium and the earliest possible elimination of the special charge on imports. I have assured Mr. Wilson that he can count on the understanding of the Canadian government with respect to the present economic difficulties facing Britain and the necessity of measures on their part to overcome them.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will recognize the difficulty of the situation created in consequence of the action taken by the government of the United Kingdom. In saying that I want to make it quite clear that we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition recognize that the cirmumstances in the United Kingdom must have been such as to impel the government of that country to bring into effect a system of imports surcharges which of course will have a very considerable effect on Canada's trade with the United Kingdom. The imbalance that has existed over the years has been large, and naturally this is one of the circumstances that have exercised the minds of successive governments in our own country to the end that that imbalance should be diminished to the greatest degree possible.
I join with the Prime Minister in the expression of the hope that the action taken by the government of the United Kingdom may be terminated at the earliest possible date. We found ourselves in that position in 1962. We acted, and the co-operation we received from the United Kingdom and other countries at that time certainly merits a similar attitude being taken by us at this time. Our hope is; that the United Kingdom will soon find it-

British Import Charges
self in a position where once more the normal shall be publishing a good deal of informatrading relations, free from controls and the tion to the trade as a whole on the application like, may be resumed.	of this tax.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the increased duties being applied by the United Kingdom. Can he tell us what proportion of Canadian exports of manufactured products to the United Kingdom will be affected, in particular what industries will be affected, and the proportion of Canadian exports of semi-manufactured products which may be affected?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: We have not yet received, Mr. Speaker, the full details of the application of the temporary British charge on imports. So far as we have been able to make calculations, about two thirds of our exports to the United Kingdom will be free of the charge and the remaining one third will bear the charge. We cannot be more precise than that. The charge will apply not only to fully manufactured goods but to most goods in semi-processed form. It will apply, for example, to paper. The best guess I can make at the moment, perhaps, is that about two thirds of our exports are free and one third subject to the levy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what other classes of semi-manufactured goods might be affected? Would sawn lumber come under this classification of manufactured products?


Mitchell William Sharp: The British order, as we have seen it, lists the exempt goods; therefore what is not exempt is subject to the levy. The information I have given is on the basis of a calculation of the exempt items, which would be about two thirds of our exports last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister indicate how soon he might be in a position to make public a list of the goods that are specifically going to be affected by this charge? I think this would be a matter of considerable concern to a large number of people in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to assure the hon. member that it will be one of the main tasks of the Department of Trade and Commerce to give advice to Canadian exporters in this connection. I am quite satisfied that in the course of the next few days and weeks we



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FURTHER SALE TO RUSSIA

Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to inform the house that the Canadian wheat board announced today that it had entered into a contract covering the sale of 250,000 long tons of wheat and 25,000 long tons of flour to the Soviet union. This amounts to the equivalent of approximately 10.6 million bushels of wheat.
The wheat and flour have been purchased for cash and will be shipped from St. Lawrence and Atlantic ports, commencing in November and continuing through the crop year. The contract provides for the shipment of the wheat and flour to the Soviet union and/or Cuba, similar to the contract entered into in 1963.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which arises out of the statement he made earlier today on motions. How much of the approximately 10 million bushels will be delivered in the form of flour and, though he may not be able to answer at the moment, could he also give an indication of how much of this flour will be shipped out through west coast ports?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my statement I gave the amount of flour, namely 25,000 long tons, which is included in the contract. The wheat and flour have both been purchased for cash, and will be shipped from the St. Lawrence and Atlantic ports.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I wish to make a statement to the house on the peace keeping conference which will be held in Ottawa from November 2 to November 6. This meeting is the outcome of a suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Canada in his address before the general assembly of the United Nations on September 19, 1963. At that time the Prime Minister stated that Canada would welcome an opportunity to share its expe-

rience with other countries which have participated in United Nations peace keeping operations. To this end he proposed that there should be an examination by interested governments of the problems and techniques of these operations.
One of the main tasks confronting the United Nations is to find ways of strengthening and improving the peace keeping capacity of the organization, to learn from the experience gained in previous operations, and to seek more effective ways to perform this function in the future. The present meeting is a first step in that direction. As I explained to the standing committee on external affairs on July 9, the aim is to review past experience of the United Nations peace keeping operations and to exchange views on the practical and technical problems which have been encountered in the course of these operations. The meeting will provide an opportunity for informal discussions of these problems amongst the representatives of those countries which have made major contributions in men to United Nations peace keeping operations, or have formed stand-by units for possible service with the United Nations or announced their intention to do so.
Given the nature of the meeting, it is intended that representation should be at the working level and be drawn from persons mainly military experts, with practical knowledge of the problems. The exchange of views would be informal, confidential and without commitment. The points for discussion cover such questions affecting the work of United Nations peace keeping forces as composition; command; control and liaison; training and operational problems; environmental operating information; logistic support; personnel administration; public relations; accounting procedures and legal problems.
Members will note that all these are practical and technical problems, the kind that must be faced whenever a United Nations peace keeping force is organized. This is the first attempt to organize a meeting of this kind. Thus the meeting will be exploratory in nature, and the discussions will concentrate on the practical and technical problems involved in United Nations operations, with a view to strengthening the capability of the participating governments to serve and support the United Nations.
The wider political issues surrounding the authorization, control and financing of United Nations operations are to be discussed at the United Nations. This meeting will not deal
Ottawa Peace Keeping Conference with how future peace keeping operations are established or how they are financed. Nor will it attempt to set up a permanent United Nations force or to form co-ordinated stand-by arrangements. This is the responsibility of the United Nations itself.
We believe that the exchange of views will be fruitful and should be of great value to the participating governments. No formal steps will be taken to draw conclusions, and it will be for participating governments to decide what use to make of the information gained at the meeting.
We have already had informal assurances from the following governments that they are prepared to participate: Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, Tunisia, and the United Arab Republic. Formal invitations have been extended to these and other governments, and we are hopeful that a number of other countries will accept. The response thus far has been most encouraging.
I have instructed our ambassador at the United Stations to transmit the text of this statement to the secretary general of the United Nations this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this meeting that is being convened will be most theoretical in its nature until some determination has been made as to the responsibilities of member nations within the United Nations to pay their shares and assessments of the costs of peace keeping.
This meeting is simply the formalization of what has taken place in the past among various peace keeping nations in informal discussions. Though it has been described as a significant step forward, in effect it is not of the consequence that some would give to it. Until there has been a settlement among the nations belonging to the United Nations, and a readiness by each nation to undertake its personal and several responsibilities as a member of that organization, meetings like this, while always helpful and always described as fruitful, will be meaningless.
I would like to hear the views of the Canadian government on the stand it will take in the United Nations regarding the U.S.S.R. and these other nations which, in a cavalier manner, have disregarded their pledged acceptance of the principles of the charter.
As for this conference, it will be a fine get-together, but I think it should be made clear that Canada and Canadians as a whole

Ottawa Peace Keeping Conference do not relish being in the position of playing their part in peace keeping while other nations, derelict in carrying out their responsibilities, do not assume that burden. That is the problem which should be faced. That is the problem which must be faced if the United Nations is to take effective action to ensure that peace keeping operations are maintained and that peace is preserved. This is simply window dressing until there is a decision made in the United Nations which will effectuate the principles of the charter.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: On behalf of this group I should like to welcome very warmly the announcement which has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Although there are serious problems, as the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, from our point of view a conference of this sort is by no means meaningless. On the contrary, we think it has an important contribution to make.
If there is one feature of international affairs which has been a hopeful development it has been the gradual emergence and growth, step by step and from precedent to precedent, of peace keeping activities under the United Nations. We are fully conscious that these are only first steps and that there are many practical difficulties to be overcome. We believe Canada is in a unique position to make a contribution in this field, and we congratulate those responsible, including the government, for having this conference called in Canada. We wish the conference the very best of luck. We know this is only one step forward, but we believe it is an important tactical step and one which should be welcomed without reservation by the Canadian people.


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: I am
sure we all agree that the principle of peace keeping is a most commendable one. On the other hand, when we consider the problems and issues which surround this important matter it becomes apparent that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and, I think, a good deal of regret that more substantial results do not accrue from the meetings which are held from time to time in this regard.
The minister has indicated that many of the most important policy problems will not be discussed at this conference, for instance the financing of peace keeping operations. Another matter which I believe should receive considerable attention is the finding of political solutions which would eliminate the causes


which necessitate the sending of peace keeping troops to these various areas.
As was pointed out, this is not necessarily a policy making conference; it is, rather, to be an information sharing conference. While it does not go as far as we would like, I believe it will be worth while and we wish the delegates success as they meet for these talks.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us to how many countries invitations were extended to attend the peace keeping operations conference early in November?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty seven.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to announce that the government has taken steps to appoint a commissioner to examine the proposals by Canadian National Railways for running through Nakina, Ontario, and Wainwright, Alberta, the matter discussed in this house on Friday. Following representations forwarded by the government on this matter to the president of the Canadian National Railways I was informed by telegram received from Mr. Gordon this morning that the company would be willing to withdraw run-through plans and withhold further action on their implementation pending an examination into the railways' proposals by an independent and impartial commissioner.
In reply to this telegram the government acknowledged the willingness of Canadian National Railways to withhold run-through plans and, conditional on this being done, is taking steps immediately to appoint a commissioner with appropriate terms of reference.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to table copies in English and in French of the exchange of telegrams between Mr. Gordon and myself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that this course was not followed before the matter became a crisis. I recall that it was brought before the house on several occasions and members in various parts of the opposition asked that action be taken. On October 22 I raised the matter, and again on the 23rd, in

order to find out the answer of the minister; whether he had transmitted the questions that had been asked to the president of Canadian National Railways and what the reply was. Now, when this sorry spectacle has developed into a serious situation-and the rail-waymen are not the ones responsible-this action is taken.
I find it difficult to understand the message from the president of Canadian National Railways to the Prime Minister in which he said:
We fully believe our discussions with employees affected and their union representatives would have reached amicable understandings as has been the case elsewhere and that present situation is due largely to intervention by third parties which has led to misunderstandings and distortions of actual situation.
I do not know who these third parties are, but on Friday last this house spoke with definiteness and clarity in this connection and demanded action. Now the action the government should have taken earlier is taken today. It is late, but at least it indicates that these third parties, members of parliament, when they express themselves for the Canadian people will be heard.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to move along the line of criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, but I forgo that temptation and raise a couple of points in connection with the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister may be aware that there are at least 2,000 employees of Canadian National Railways all the way across the system from Montreal to Vancouver who are at present booked unfit for duty, or are sitting around the clock in union meetings.
I have received communications which indicate that while they are pleased the Prime Minister has taken this action, they would like at least two points cleared up. One is that there will be no recriminations and no disciplinary action contemplated by the management. There is nothing in the Prime Minister's statement or the wire from the president of the C.N.R. to touch on this. That is No. 1. The second is whether the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry will be general enough to take care of the points that should be considered.
I wanted to make this point clear. The three brotherhoods which have an interest in this matter, the engineers, the firemen and the trainmen, made representations to the Minister of Labour in connection with the statement of declaration of intent of Canadian National Railways to unilaterally operate crews through recognized terminals.
Appointment of Railway Commission
This was brought forward six months ago and is a request for just such a commission of inquiry, and it sets out the general terms of reference they would like. The first is to investigate unilateral actions of Canadian railways in changing working conditions and altering conditions of employment detrimental to the interests of their employees during the currency of a contract. The second-and this is the important part-is to study the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the Railway Act to ascertain whether railway employees are adequately protected under existing legislation and interpretations relative thereto, and recommend any necessary amendments.
If these men are to go back to work it seems to me the government must go further, and go further immediately, with some information to the men, perhaps through management, that there will be no recriminations, and that the terms of reference will be broad enough so the inquiry is not just confined to the narrow situation in Nakina and Wainwright but that these other important considerations can also be taken care of.
I underline the importance of this because we do not get spontaneous reaction from Montreal to Vancouver, in respect of men scattered throughout the country, just on the basis of what has taken place at Nakina and Wainwright. I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour whether they would take some action in respect of their comments so these men can get back to work and the C.N.R. can begin to move again. I should also like to ask that the documents be made an appendix to Hansard rather than merely tabled.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in this connection, related to what I said on Friday, is that we are very happy to have a commission set up to look into this matter, and that the management of the railways has decided not to proceed with the run-throughs, as a result of requests to delay their implementation.
In this connection, I believe the procedure now being followed will have good results. I must say that I have to agree with some of the remarks which have been made to the effect that we have not in the past taken this situation seriously enough, nor dealt with it as we should have done. I hope this same attitude will be taken in respect of other difficulties which may arise in future. The government should take action to prevent these difficulties from occurring, rather than
9406	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Railway Commission waiting until they occur, so the individuals concerned will not have to book off on sick leave, placing themselves in the position of not being on call for work. There are many avenues open to the government which I should like to see it follow so that appropriate action can be taken to deal with some of these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the documents tabled by the Prime Minister be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


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

On the orders of the day:


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what actual steps are being taken to get the railroaders back to work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the first point raised by my hon. friend in his statement, to which I could not reply on motions, I should tell him that steps have already been taken to clear up the situation. I am talking about the penalties that have been threatened.
So far as the terms of reference of the commission are concerned, we are trying to work them out without delay and in a way which we hope will be satisfactory to all those concerned. We have already invited a commissioner to take on this task and are waiting to hear from him. Perhaps I should add that the Minister of Labour is in touch

with the labour unions concerned with this matter as well.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked that a copy of the interview given by the Minister of Justice on the French C.B.C. program "Au-jourd'hui" on October 15 be tabled in the house. A transcript has now been prepared by the C.B.C. from the tape of that particular broadcast, and I would ask that it be tabled at this time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Ouellel: 1.	What payments did the federal government make to the province of Quebec during each of the fiscal years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 (estimated) under the following headings, in detail (a) unconditional grants (b) conditional grants (c) payments to individuals (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) family allowances (iii) old age security (iv) others?
2.	What is the total amount of all payments made in each of the fiscal years mentioned above?
3.	What is the per capita share paid by the government with respect to each of the above items compared with the per capita share paid to the other nine provinces?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Federal payments to the province of Quebec:
preliminary estimated 1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
(in thousands of dollars)
1.
(a) Unconditional grants-
Statutory' subsidies	
Equalization	
Share of federal estate tax	
50% of federal income tax on certain public utilities	
Sub-total	
4,023	4,023	4,023	4,02362,632	77,755	69,064	95,066-	-	-	8,3822,064	4,481	4,623	4,96568,719	86,259	77,350	112,436

Questions
preliminary estimated 1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
(in thousands of dollars)
(b) Conditional grants-
(i)	Agriculture-
Agricultural Lime Assistance	
Farm Labour agreements	
Ram Premium policy	
Freight assistance to Royal Winter Fair
4-H Clubs	
Potato warehouse construction	
Compensation for disease losses....
ARDA	
Barberry eradication	
Sub-total
(ii)	Health-
Hospital construction	
General public health	
Tuberculosis control	
Mental health	
Professional training	
Cancer control	
Public health research	
Medical rehabilitation and crippled children..
Child and maternal health	
Vital statistics fees	
Disability advisory services	
Blind pensioners	
Sub-total
(iii)	Hospital insurance
(iv)	Welfare-
Old age assistance	
Blind persons allowances.... Disabled persons allowances Unemployment assistance... National Welfare grants	
Sub-total
(v)	Fitness and amateur sport
(vi)	Vocational training-
Student aid	
Vocational school training	
Technician training	
Trade and occupational training....
Training in co-op. with industry...
Training of unemployed	
Training of disabled persons	
Training of technical teachers, etc.... Training for federal departments, etc.
Correspondence courses	
Capital assistance-technical schools
Sub-total
(vii)	Highways and transportation-
Trans-Canada Highway	
Railway grade crossing fund___
Miscellaneous	
Sub-total	
2,239	2,099	1,205	1,20521	24	25	252	2	-	-6	5	4	311	10	10	10-	-	139	32-	-	2	2-	216	2,670	3,555-	-	102,279	2,356	4,055	4,8424,988	5,786	5,883	4,0201,641	1,923	1,794	1,232	1,238	1,043	2,476	2,331	2,575	466	501	638	9,087480	586	696	650	562	613	533	628	743	549	501	393	18	21	-	--	13	12	12-	10	16	1513,033	14,100	14,406	13,13473,022	88,714	113,849	119,00010,896	13,794	13,860	16,3621,412	1,663	1,643	1,9047,461	8,578	8,081	9,53238,222	33,579	39,439	43,000-	-	-	14857,991	57,614	63,023	70,946334100	100	100	100-	-	897	8972,825	5,445	4,900	5,5603,376	5,380	5,200	6,30012	27	45	200930	1,655	1,300	2,000-	299	112	31255	59	75	8023	22	-	46-	34	20	251,509	7,391	9,000	22,0008,830	20,412	21,649	37,5202,703	9,622	20,000	18,460119	152	-	-8	971	-	-2,830	10,745	20,000	18,4609408	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
		1961-62	1962-63	preliminary 1963-64	estimated 1964-65
		(in thousands of dollars)		
(viii) Resources development-				
Fishing vessel construction	-	174	226	135Industrial development-fisheries	-	-	15	12Forest inventories	-	-	-	Reforestation	-	-	-	Forest fire protection	... 281	268	639	1,907Forest access roads	... 1,099	1,076	1,000	Forest stand improvement	-	224	268	Camp ground and picnic areas	.. 29	-	-	-Roads to resources	.. 426	2,281	1,500	1,400Sub-total	... 1,835	4,023	3,648	3,454(ix) Civil defence	.. 427	669	1,543	1,729(x) Municipal winter works	.. 10,634	11,548	14,055	15,000Total	.. 170,881	210,181	256,228	284,419(c) Payments to individuals-	(i) Unemployment Insurance benefits	.. 135,782	123,026	116,695	N.A.(ii) Family allowances	.. 157,713	160,299	162,324	160,000(iii) Old age security	.. 131,711	155,360	172,992	188,000(iv) Others-	War veterans pensions (estimated)	.. 19,743	19,578	17,853	17,609War veterans allowances (estimated)	.. 8,387	9,127	9,860	9,7002.	The above federal contributions to the provinces or individuals resident in the provinces for the following fiscal years are set out below:1961-62	1962-63	preliminary 1963-64	estimated 1964-65(in thousands of dollars)	Unconditional grants	
543,366	275,198	252,818	326,327Conditional grants	
606,453	846,202	880,992	902,058Unemployment insurance benefits	
454,739	403,191	365,655	N.A.Family allowances	
519,537	530,225	537,045	544,735Old age security	733,857	807,827	881,425War veterans pensions (estimated)	
163,462	161,777	159,537	156,800War veterans allowances (estimated)	
75,019	81,398	82,708	84,600

Questions
3. Per capita contributions to (a) Quebec and (6) Other nine provinces.
1961-62	1962-63	preliminary 1963-64	estimated 1964-65	(a)	(&)	(a)	(i>)	(a)	<b)	(a)	(b)$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$Unconditional grants	
13.07	36.67	16.08	14.35	14.15	13.11	20.22	15.69Conditional grants	
32.49	33.66	39.17	48.31	46.86	46.66	51.14	45.30Unemployment insurance benefits	
25.82	24.65	22.93	21.28	21.34	18.59	N.A.	N.A.Family allowances	
29.99	27.96	29.87	28.10	29.69	27.99	28.77	28.22Old age security	
25.04	38.09	28.95	43.94	31.64	47.41	33.80	50.86War veterans pensions	
3.75	11.10	3.65	10.80	3.26	10.58	3.17	10.21War veterans allowances	
1.59	5.15	1.70	5.49	1.80	5.44	1.74	5.49
Note: The above answer, with respect to payments to individuals, includes the five most important categories of payment but excludes a very large number of smaller payments which have not been included because of the amount of work which would have been entailed.


PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES IN GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS AND MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Gelber: 1.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed by each provincial government, and the average annual wage for each province?
2.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed in each province in primary and secondary schools, and what is the average annual wage for each province?
3.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed in municipalities in each province, and what is the average annual wage for each province?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Employees and gross earnings by province -departmental services, March 1964:
2. Number of teachers and principals and
average annual	salaries	in primary and sec-	ondary schools,	1963-64,	by province:	No. of Province Teachers	Primary	SecondaryNewfoundland	5,097	$2,516	$4,306Prince Edward Island	1,235	2,819	4,098Nova Scotia	7,720	3,499	5,023New Brunswick	6,321	3,038	4,984Quebec	61,995	*	*Ontario	60,903	4,771	7,485Manitoba	9,395	4,073	5,982Saskatchewan	10,152	4,246	6,359Alberta	14,869	5,073	6,639British Columbia	15,253	5,343	7,018No. of	Gross	3. Employees and	gross earnings in urban	Province	Employees	earnings	municipalities with	population	greater thanNewfoundland	7,138	$ 1,777,495	10,000, departmental services, by region:	Prince Edward Island 1,760	374,450	No. of	GrossNova Scotia	9,377	2,254,283	Region	New Brunswick	6,584	1,897,665	Employees	earningsQuebec	30,136	10,706,000	Atlantic Provinces	4,681	$ 16,973,030Ontario	53,430	19,067,782	Quebec	27,812	126,016,850Manitoba	7,409	2,555,513	Ontario	46,477	199,600,000Saskatchewan	10,268	3,704,643	Prairie Provinces	19,142	82,816,150Alberta	14,785	5,099,349	British Columbia	109,275	53,066,081British Columbia	*	*	Note: Figures do	not include municipal	
Note: Institutions of higher education, government enterprises, and workmen's compensation boards not included.
Source of data: Dominion bureau of statistics.
enterprises not normally associated with departmental activities of municipal government. Also excluded is information for municipally owned hospitals and municipal school boards.
20220-596J

Questions
Source of data: Dominion bureau of statistics.
*Not available.


FISHERIES DEPARTMENT SHIPS, WEST COAST
Mr. Basford: What are the names, sizes, headquarters port and intended purpose, or use, of all Department of Fisheries motorized ships of 20 feet overall length or more, stationed on the west coast?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Motorized Ships-West Coast
Department of Fisheries
Name	Size	H.Q. PortAgonus	37'	ButedaleArrow Post	54.6'	Bella BellaAtlin Post	61.5'	NanaimoAtolla	37.3'	TofinoBabine Post	55.7'	ButedaleBeaver Rock	51'	Campbell RiverBrama	42'	Port HardyBranta	36'	Donald's Landing, Babine LakeChilco Post	63'	New WestminsterCiona	34.5'	ZeballosClavella	52'	Prince RupertComox Post	54.2'	Port AlberniDaphnia	34'	West ViewDiaphus	39.6'	ArrandaleEgret Plume II 46.5'	Rivers InletFalcon Rock	50'	Rivers InletF.D. 102	34.1'	ComoxF.D. 202	38.2'	New WestminsterGavia	40.7'	New WestminsterHoway	115.7'	VictoriaHunter Point	90.6'	VictoriaKitimat	79.7'	Prince RupertLaurier	113'	VictoriaNorth Rock	45'	Bella CoolaOnerka II	46.5'	ArrandalePholis	37.3'	QuatsinoPillar Rock	51'	MassetRissa	36'	Mission CitySarda	31.9'	Walters Cove, KyuquotSeal Rock	43.5'	New WestminsterSooke Post	55.7'	Queen Charlotte CityStar Rock	39.9'	StevestonStatistic	30'	CowichanStuart Post	54.6'	Alert BaySurge Rock	48.3'	SandspitTemple Rock	45'	WestviewTakla Rock	26'	Stuart Lake StationThrasher Rock	32.8'	Ladysmith
These vessels carry out patrols necessary for fishery resource management.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
A. P. Knight	78'	NanaimoAlta	38'	NanaimoG. B. Reed	177'	NanaimoInvestigator No. 1	60'	NanaimoMelibe	25'	NanaimoNoctiluca	33'	NanaimoVelella	76' barge	Nanaimo
These vessels serve as floating platforms for the conduct of research operations at sea and in coastal waters.


REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the government intend to oarry out a major refit of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure in 1966 and, if so, what are the spending implications of this refit; in particular, what is the total expenditure: how much of it is to be included in maintenance expenditure and how much in a capital program?
2.	What is the top estimated figure of the spending necessary to bring the Bonaventure up to requirements?
3.	Is there any possibility that this ship will ever be returned to the British navy and, if so, what conditions in the agreement are there for making changes in the ship so that it will be acceptable to the British and who is responsible for the cost of such changes?
4.	Is it the intention in refitting the Bonaventure to achieve an efficient naval troop carrier and, if so, has any consideration been given to the purchase of a fleet logistic ship, such as the British navy is building at the cost of approximately two milion pounds?
5.	How many executive personnel in the R.C.N. are now involved in working on the proposals for altering the Bonaventure aside from the ships officers and the normal administration work which would relate to the vessel?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to parts 1 and 2 of the question are yes, as indicated in reply to part 1 of starred question No. 1,169. A decision on total expenditure and whether the costs will be provided from operations and maintenance or capital funds depends on the type and extent of the work to be undertaken, and this matter is now under review.
The answer to part 3 of the question is no, inasmuch as the Bonaventure is owned by Canada, unlike her predecessors the Magnificent and the Warrior, which were on loan.
The answer to part 4, regarding the sealift capability of the Royal Canadian Navy, is that this is also a matter of current study.
The answer to part 5 of the question is, six Royal Canadian Navy officers.


TENDERS FOR HEADSTONES, HALIFAX DISTRICT
Mr. Coales: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for the supply and installation of headstones and markers in the Halifax district for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 12 month period commencing October 1, 1964?
2.	How many bids were received and what was the amount of each bid?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Tingley Monuments Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
2.	Three bids were received, in the following amounts: $10,823, $10,969, $11,076.


PROPOSED REDUCTION IN C.P.R. SERVICE, QUEBEC
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Does Canadian Pacific Railways intend to reduce by 50 per cent its schedules in various regions of the province of Quebec and, among others, cancel the runs known as 202 and 203 between Lac Megantic and Montreal?
2.	Will the government ensure that no action will be taken until the population affected have been consulted?
3.	Will steps be taken by the government before October 25, 1964 to prevent or delay such reductions in service?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: In respect of part 1, the board of transport commissioners advise as follows:
The following reductions in passenger train service have been announced by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to take effect on October 25, 1964:
Trains 202-203 which now operate daily between Montreal and Megantic, P.Q. are to be discontinued.
Trains 31-32 operating daily between Montreal and Farnham, P.Q. are to be discontinued. Trains 31-32 form part of a through service between Montreal and Boston.
Trains 137-138 now operating Saturday only and
Trains 132-133 now operating daily between Montreal and Ottawa via Lachute are to be discontinued.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has also indicated its intention to reduce the frequency of the passenger train service operating between Montreal and Mont Laurier, P.Q.
Notice of these changes was posted in all railway stations on the lines served by these trains on September 25, 1964. Concurrent with the posting of this notice, advice of the changes was also furnished the board.
Questions
Subsequently, the board directed the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to defer the effective date of these changes with respect to the Montreal-Farnham and Montreal-Ottawa services.
In the case of the Montreal-Farnham service, since this change would have involved a complete abandonment of passenger train service on a portion of this line in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been advised that it will be necessary to secure the board's approval before making this change. Consequently, this reduction in service will not take place on October 25, 1964 as contemplated.
The change in service on the north shore line between Montreal and Ottawa represents a reduction in the existing service and as such does not require the board's prior approval. However, the substance of the submissions filed protesting this reduction in service caused the board to direct Canadian Pacific Railway Company to continue these trains pending consideration of these protests. The seriousness of the complaints received with respect to this particular service is such as to have prompted the board to set the matter down for public hearing.
A change is also being made in the Mont-real-Mont Laurier passenger train service effective on the same date. This change, however, does not involve the discontinuance of specific trains but a reduction in the frequency of their operation. Such a change in passenger train service does not require the board's approval.
Complaints have, however, reached the board with respect to this particular reduction as well as the proposed elimination of the local passenger train service between Montreal and Megantic. The board has directed the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to file its submissions with respect to the specific points raised in these complaints.
2 and 3. The Minister of Transport has no power to take such action but the steps taken by the board of transport commissioners are set out in the answer to part 1.


BANK OF CANADA PROFIT
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What is the Bank of Canada's main source of profit or revenue?
2.	Is the annual net profit made available to the government for the advantage of the nation?
3.	What profit was made by the Bank of Canada in 1944, 1954 and 1963?

Questions


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Income on investments.
2.	Yes. Since 1955 when the rest fund of the Bank of Canada reached $25,000,000, being five times the paid up capital, the whole of the annual net profit has been paid to the receiver general as required by section 24 of the Bank of Canada Act.
3.	1944, $20,312,659.68; 1954, $51,877,398.94; 1963, $116,386,458.94.


C.B.C.-CANCELLATION OF NOON BROADCAST BY B.B.C.
Mr. Noble: Is the B.B.C. twelve o'clock noon broadcast from London, England, being dropped by the C.B.C. and, if so, what are the reasons which will cause the termination of this most outstanding and reliable newscast?


Mr. J. B. Stewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the B.B.C. news from London has not been discontinued. The hon. member's question may be concerned with a change of scheduling that has recently taken place at CBL, Toronto, where the B.B.C. news is now scheduled at 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, and at the noon hour on Saturdays and Sundays.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Noble: During Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Canada, what was the number of C.B.C. employees who participated in programs in (a) Charlottetown (b) Quebec city (c) Ottawa, and the estimated cost in the case of each city named herein?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The radio and television coverage of the royal visit for French and English networks and international service involved a total staff of approximately 400. The assignment of staff by locations was as follows: (a) Charlottetown and Summerside, 196; (b) Quebec city, 183; (c) Ottawa, 154.
The budget for the complete 1964 royal visit coverage was authorized at $270,000, including contingencies. No breakdown was made on the basis of locations.


C.B.C. PERSONNEL AT OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Nesbitt: 1. How many commentators employed by the C.B.C. are In attendance at the Olympic games In Tokyo?

2. What is the total number of C.B.C. personnel, both permanent and temporary, in attendance at the Olympic games?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Fifteen to cover English and French radio and television services.
2.	Twenty one.


C.B.C. CAMERAMEN COVERING ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many cameramen were designated by the C.B.C. to cover the recent visit of Her Majesty to Canada?
2.	How many of these were temporarily employed?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Nine film cameramen.
2.	Six.


AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering amendments to the industrial relations and Disputes Investigation Act and, if so, will such amendments include provisions to penalize an employer who uses industrial espionage to interfere with the right of association granted to employees under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is the intention of the government, when an opportunity permits, to consider the amendment of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. At that time, such consideration will take into account all unfair labour practices, not only the matter of industrial espionage.


PROTESTS RESPECTING C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;FESTIVAL&quot;
Mr. Noble: Were telephone calls, letters and telegrams ol complaint received by the C.B.C. regarding the plays that were shown on C.B.C. t.v. on October 7, 1964 and October 14, 1964, on the program "Festival" and, if so, how many?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the plays presented on October 7 and 14, 1964, in the "Festival" series have received about 160 telephone calls and 80 letters and telegrams commenting on the presentation. Thirty per cent contained favourable comment and 70 per cent unfavourable.


NEW BRUNSWICK-VETERANS TREATED OUTSIDE LANCASTER HOSPITAL, 1964
Mr. MacRae: For the province of New Brunswick, now many cases of war veterans allowance recipients, all classifications, were operated on or treated medically, outside of Lancaster military hospital, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Four hundred and sixty five.


NEW BRUNSWICK-VETERANS TREATED OUTSIDE LANCASTER HOSPITAL, 1963
Mr. MacRae: For the province of New Brunswick, how many cases of war veterans allowance recipients, all classifications, were operated on, or treated medically, outside of Lancaster military hospital, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Four hundred and eight.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the C.N.R. charter any boats for service
on the Newfoundland coast from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1963 and, if so (a) what was the date of charter (b) name and address of owners (e) condition of charter, length of each (d) amount paid each year and to whom it was paid (e) what officials of the C.N.R. are in charge of chartering (f) what tonnage did each boat carry each year from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1963	(g) what was the tonnage
capacity of each ship?
2.	Did the C.N.R. pay any bonus besides the charter price from January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1963 and, if so, what was the amount of same and to whom was same paid?
3.	Did the C.N.R. pay any salaries for crews on any chartered boat from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1963 and, if so (a) what was the amount paid to crews as regards to each boat (b) to whom was each amount paid?
4.	Did the C.N.R. do any repairs at C.N.R. expense on any boat chartered from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1963 and, if so, what was the cost of repairs on each boat and the name of same?
5.	Has the C.N.R. any unpaid accounts for repairs to boats not owned by the C.N.R. at St. Johns, Newfoundland from January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1963 and, if so, what is (a) name of boat repaired (b) value of repairs for each year on each boat?
6.	What is the actual amount of claims for lost freight claimed at North Sydney for each year from January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1963; what is the actual amount paid by C.N.R. to claimants each year from January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1963?
7.	Has the C.N.R. any unpaid accounts for
freight charges between January 1,	1959 and
December 31, 1962 over $1,000, and, if so, what is (a) name of debtors and addresses (b) what steps
Inquiries of the Ministry
have been taken to collect (c) date of charges as yet unpaid?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, asking him whether his attention was drawn to a C.B.C. television program on which the so-called leader of the United States nazi party was interviewed, and whether there has been any complaint in connection therewith. Were complaints received, among others, from the Zionists' convention and from representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion? The program in question had to do with a man whose conduct is such that I can see no reason why it should receive the attention of the C.B.C. across Canada, nor why nazism should be glorified in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed received views and protests against the announcement by the C.B.C. that they were going to interview this individual. I transferred those views and protests to the president of the C.B.C. I hope the corporation took them into very serious consideration before reaching its decision. They seem in fact to have been taken into account if we consider the statement made by the narrator, John Drainie, as a preamble to the Rockwell interview, which I will be glad to table if the house sees fit.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that one way in which we could find out why this sort of thing is going on is through a committee before which the president of the C.B.C. could appear, so this kind of thing will not appear to receive the tacit approval of parliament which is supplying the money to operate this corporation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question on a number of occasions during this session. I have already said that at the present time the C.B.C. is proceeding with an internal study of the organization, and that the advisory committee which was established at the end of May has been asking all kinds of questions which necessitate a good deal of work by top management. I have already said that the
9414	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry president of the C.B.C. has appeared during this session before the public accounts committee. If, in addition, the C.B.C. were asked to appear before a parliamentary committee, this in my view might completely paralyse the corporation in its work, which would most certainly be undesirable.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the C.B.C. that statements such as those made by John Drainie in introducing the program are rationalizations of the position of the C.B.C.? On the basis that the C.B.C. wants responsible policy in Canada, it should follow a responsible policy itself?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do so.


Bert Raymond Leboe: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if he thinks it is right that parliament should set up a crown corporation and then be barred from having anything to do with that corporation because the government will not set up a committee to deal with the problems that exist?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, when we introduce legislation next session I think that will be the proper time for the hon. member to express his views.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister when he expects his estimates will be before parliament.


Maurice Lamontagne: That, Mr. Speaker, depends on the house leader.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to return to the questions about the television program "This Hour Has Seven Days". The question I should like to ask is directed to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Justice who is now visiting St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
On this show last night a serious allegation was made that there was a prisoner in this penitentiary who had received a 14 year sentence as a result of his participation in the riot of two years ago. This prisoner was a French Canadian. Another prisoner, who had led the riot, was said to have got an extra sentence of one day. The second statement that was made that was very shocking was that this French Canadian prisoner had his letters to his family and other people stopped. This is a very serious infringement


of ordinary human rights. I should like the Prime Minister to ask the Minister of Justice, when he makes his statement to the house concerning his visit to the penitentiary, to make some attempt to tell the members of the house the truth about these statements made on television.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that both these matters should be and will be investigated, along with two or three other statements that were made on the same program.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a further question relating to the C.B.C. program to which the attention of the Secretary of State has been directed. Does the minister not consider it an impropriety for the C.B.C. to make available to a large number of United States viewers and voters on the eve of their election a highly controversial political film which the leader of the party which made that film had decided should not be released over any United States television outlet?


Maurice Lamontagne: As long as I am responsible for reporting to parliament for the C.B.C. I intend to follow the example which was given me by one of my predecessors, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who, as the hon. member knows very well, said he would not comment on the programming of the corporation.


REPORTED COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF FRENCH NETWORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The question I am about to ask has nothing to do with programming; it has to do with a speech made by Hon. Bona Arsenault; I have to refer to this before I can ask the question. According to a report I have here Mr. Arsenault said:
There has been left wing communistic infiltration of the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, most of our newspapers and political organizations, perhaps even the Quebec Liberal federation.
However, the administrative responsibility of the minister does not go beyond the first. Has this statement been brought to the attention of the minister? Will the hon. gentleman get in touch with the president of the C.B.C. and have him secure from Mr. Arsenault information regarding this communist influence in the C.B.C. in Quebec, to which reference has been made on a number of occasions?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be very glad to ask Mr. Arsenault whether he has any names-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. The minister cannot do that; he has just told us he cannot do that. Will he take up this matter with the president of the C.B.C. and let us get to the bottom of this suggestion, because it is repeated frequently that there is communist influence there.


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be happy to ask the president of the C.B.C. as well.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the budgetary surplus for the first six months of the current year, could the minister tell the house if he is considering the possibility of increasing family allowances next year?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I presume my hon. friend refers to a statement of the government accounts as at the end of September, which shows a very heartening improvement over last year. This reflects in large measure the improvement in conditions in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: And higher taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My right hon. friend is now talking about something he understands full well.


John George Diefenbaker: It is something the minister does not understand.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would point out that not too much by way of inference should be drawn from these published statements-


Gilles Grégoire: That is not what I asked.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will come to your question in a moment-until the results for the full year are in. In some particulars there have been differences in the way amounts have been collected, so to some extent the comparisons are not completely on the same basis.
Inquiries of the Ministry As to my hon. friend's question, I suspect he knows it is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because he is asking for a statement of government policy on orders of the day.


Mr. Lambert:: So has the answer been out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, respecting the point of order, I believe that if the Minister of Finance deemed that my question was out of order, he took quite a long time to answer it and then say that it was out of order.
I would like to ask him a supplementary question.
Does he deem that the prosperity of the country is measured by the increase in taxes? Is this the meaning of the answer he just gave me?


Mr. G. L. Chafterfon (Esquimall-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the situation will the minister consider the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have already answered that question on several occasions. If there are any changes in taxation they will be announced in the next budget.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact we are long past the first half of October, when his colleague the associate minister indicated that a decision would be announced with regard to the second half of the Suttie report, is the minister now able to give some certainty of future to the militia by announcing what the decision of the government is in regard to the recommendations in that report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, at the moment the Suttie proceedings and the departmental position in relation to them are being reproduced and translated. As soon as this mechanical process has taken place we will be in a position to table them. I would expect this to be within a very few days.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


WHEAT SHIPMENTS THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It concerns a question I directed to the minister on July 16 regarding the shipment of grain through the port of Churchill. At that time the minister answered as follows:
The hon. member may like to know that last year we shipped a record amount of wheat through Churchill, and I suppose we may even exceed that record this year.
In view of the figures just released, which show that 21,644,773 bushels have been shipped through Churchill this year and that this is a million and a quarter bushels less than last year and a half million bushels less than 1959, how can the minister now justify the answer which he gave me on July 16?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to provide the hon. member with the information he requires. I will bring the question to the attention of the minister, and I am sure he will make a report at the first opportunity. In view of the prefatory remarks to the question of the hon. member, I think he might be interested in the itinerary of the minister for today.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really think we could save the time of the house by avoiding such material.


INQUIRY AS TO STUDY OF CONTINENTAL GRID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marvin Gelber: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The minister issued a statement advising that a study is being made of phase two of a national power network which would take into account north-south connections. I wonder whether any consideration is being given to a study of a continental power grid.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would put this question on the order paper.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Since the minister announced last week the establishment of a federal-provincial committee to look into long distance power transmission, I should like to ask him whether he has invited a representative of the province of Quebec to sit on that committee.
If so, what was the reply made by the province of Quebec in this connection, since I note the absence of a Quebec representative on the committee?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we have endeavoured at all times to work very closely with the province of Quebec. They were not represented on the interprovincial committee, but it was specifically understood in the interprovincial committee, where this decision was taken, that Quebec be kept advised in every respect on every move that is made.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I advised the house that I would give serious consideration to the case of Miss Daisy Maud Henry, to see to what extent I could use the discretionary powers of the minister to allow her to remain in Canada.
I wish to emphasize again that the decision in her case was based wholly on the fact that she gained entry to Canada by material misrepresentation, and there is no doubt that she was properly ordered deported. I have decided, however, that the actual deportation will be suspended for three months, during which time all the circumstances relating to Miss Henry and her children will be thoroughly reviewed.


TORONTO-STATUS OF PERSONS CONCERNED WITH NEWSPAPER STRIKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, while I

am on my feet I should like to give an answer to the hon. member for Danforth with regard to a few cases involving workers on newspapers in Toronto. In view of all the circumstances with respect to the dispute in the newspaper industry in Toronto, I deem it proper not to grant landed immigrant status to seven persons who have come to Canada from the United States for employment with the newspapers and who have not been landed, unless in one or more of these cases factors not now known arise that make such landing proper.
To this end I have directed that the case of each of the persons concerned be concluded immediately, and unless exceptional factors arise each person concerned will be asked to leave voluntarily at once. In default of so doing the provisions of the Immigration Act respecting special inquiries and deportation if necessary will be invoked.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder whether he would consider adding a supplementary answer to the one he gave today to the question by the hon. member for Danforth, giving the names of the persons to whom he is about to deny landed immigrant status so that we may compare them with the information given in answer to my starred question No. 2,054, made by his parliamentary secretary on October 14.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me the names of the people concerned and I wonder if it would be proper for the minister to give that information to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is not possible, will the minister look again at the answer given on October 14 to see whether he can give any more information regarding the names which were placed on Hansard on that date?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire whether there is a reconciliation to be checked and whether there are contradictions.
Inquiries of the Ministry


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the strong objections to Bill No. C-126 by the Vancouver board of trade, the air lines, the Northland Shipping Company, the B.C. towboat owners association, the automotive transport association of B.C., will the minister defer further consideration of this bill in the house, even at this late date, and receive delegations from these industries and organizations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to receive delegations with a view to hearing representations on this bill. The principal objection to the bill, as I understand it, from almost all these organizations has to do with the hours of work. I think in committee of the whole there will be an -opportunity to discuss this and possibly to satisfy hon. members that the provisions of the bill are not as restrictive as they might appear at first glance.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to ask the minister if he has replied to the many representations he has had from the trucking industry, and will he table a copy of his reply for the information of the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have signed a good many letters in reply to representations from the trucking industry. I would be glad to table or make available copies of those letters, or representative copies.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the answer given by the minister a moment ago are we to take it that all that is going to be done in the committee is to explain that the effects of several sections of this bill are not as the trucking industry believes them to be? Is that all he meant by the statement? I wish to ask him at the same time, in view of the objections that have been raised which appear so well founded-and I am referring to those trucking industries operating between province and province-is it the intention of the government to reconsider the section dealing with hours of work so that the necessary exemption may be provided for that industry?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, presently I have under consideration this particular transitional section which provides for the deferment of the total application of this section, and that I would hope would take into account the objections that have been made. The bill has received second reading, and I think it would not be the wish of the house to depart from the principle, but I think it would be the wish of the house to make it possible for all groups to comply without undue hardship and to consider how this clause might operate or how changes might be made in it.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his statement, because that is along the lines of the answer he gave in the house the other day. Will these various industries, particularly the representatives of interprovincial or national trucking companies, have an opportunity of placing their views before the committee so an amendment may be brought in to assure that the industry shall not be struck a mortal blow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already heard from the trucking industry, and I gather that hon. members generally have received similar representations. This industry involves a number of complicating factors, including the long hours that have been traditionally worked and the operations which in part may be federal and in part provincial, as well as the further complication of competition between provincial operations, which are under provincial jurisdiction, and competitive organizations under federal jurisdiction. All these things are under consideration. I would not wish to depart from the principles of this bill so that we could achieve them, but I would hope that in committee of the whole we can reach a conclusion which will make it possible for these industries to comply without receiving a mortal blow.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question which is based on a charge made in this morning's Montreal Gazette, to the effect that he conspired with certain Liberal members of parliament to lose the committee vote that made Remembrance day a statutory holiday. I want to ask the minister if he has seen the report, does he agree with it and, if so, why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I give notice I would like to debate this on the late show.


Mr. Speaker:: It is possible to debate a question which is in order, but I do not think one which is out of order should be debated.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I
understand it, the minister is now proposing that we resolve these difficulties in committee of the whole. Would the minister not reconsider and bring this matter before a committee of the house to which we can invite representatives not only of the trucking industry but of other industries, such as the country elevators in western Canada whose interests will be seriously affected by this legislation? In such a committee their viewpoints can be brought directly to all hon. members instead of being leaked into the house by individual members.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not intended to send the bill at this stage to a special or standing committee of the house. We, as well as individual hon. members have been hearing the representations of interested groups over the past ten days, and I believe we could deal with the matter effectively by continuing our discussions in committee of the whole. There is one particular point involved. I think there is a solution for it in the bill, and possibly this solution can be improved.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, can the minister say whether the shipping and air lines industries were contacted by experts from his department before final drafting of this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have attempted discussions, extending back quite a number of months, with interested associations in the country. I cannot say specifically whether discussions were held with these operators prior to the introduction of the bill, but I am sure discussions have been held by officers of the department with at least one group involved, and we would be glad to have discussions with the air lines.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that this is almost becoming a debate. We have had seven, eight or nine supplementary questions already.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I put this one supplementary which has not been asked. Has the minister received representations from the three prairie wheat pools and other elevator associations in the west with regard to country elevator operations and how Bill No. C-126 applies to them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had representations. We have given and are

Inquiries of the Ministry
continuing to give them most careful will be applicable, and those excluded from consideration.	its application?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would he advise the house whether, since the adjournment of the debate last week, Bill No. C-126 has been referred to the law officers of the crown for re-examination to see to which industries it does apply and to which industries it does not apply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, certain questions did arise in the discussion last week, for example with regard to the fishing industry, and I have asked for advice on the application of the bill to some of these borderline cases which I, as a non-lawyer, would hesitate to deal with myself without further advice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, does the minister suggest that the bill was prepared and presented to the house without this prior consideration as to what would be its ambit?


An hon. Member:: Typically Liberal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. We have included within the ambit of the bill the traditional jurisdiction of the federal parliament in labour matters. If my hon. friend will refer to other labour acts he will find that we have followed exactly the claims made in those previous acts with respect to jurisdiction.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: As a supplementary question, now that the Department of Justice is studying the bill, would the minister ask that department to list all the industries to which the bill is applicable and those which are excluded from its provisions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said I had referred the bill to the Department of Justice. I have asked for further advice on certain points that were raised. The industries that are included in the application clause are those which are covered by the Annual Vacations Act, which my hon. friend introduced. There is exactly the same coverage.


Michael Starr: In view of the tremendous doubt that there seems to be in the minds of many industries across Canada would the minister not consider asking the Department of Justice to list all the industries to which the bill


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I suppose ultimately this is a question that will have to be determined by the courts, but in this bill we are claiming the exact jurisdictional area that has been claimed for federal laws of this kind in the past, and surely there is an experience there that will assist industries in determining the application of this bill to their operations.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question related to the one asked by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories. Has the government evolved a new technique of governing by proposing legislation which its own members will assist in defeating or amending by staying out of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not satisfied with the answer, Mr. Speaker, and I give notice I should like to debate this matter at ten o'clock


Mr. Speaker:: I may say I am not satisfied with the form of the question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My question related to the administrative responsibility of the government and I should like to know why it is out of order. I may be wrong, but I phrased it in such a way that it would be in order, as far as I could see.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be wrong too, but in my opinion it was a statement, not a question.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Has he received complaints today that over the week end the C.N.R. called back to work people who had been turned down previously for certain work because they were colour blind and, in one or more other cases, because they had heart conditions? If he has received such complaints will he look into the question of the possible safety hazards involved?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such complaints.

Interim Supply HOUSE OF COMMONS


INQUIRY AS TO FRENCH EDITION OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE DIRECTORY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Secretary of State a question which I asked about two or three weeks ago and which has remained unanswered.
Could the minister tell us why we have received the government telephone directory in English but not in French?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I had the reply with me the other day but the hon. member was not in the house. I do not have it with me today but I shall give it to the hon. member tomorrow.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General as the minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. What action does he anticipate as a result of his recent meetings with members of the Royal Canadian Navy at Halifax, with regard to providing housing accommodation for ordinary seamen and non-commissioned officers at reasonable rents, a situation that is nonexistent today?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question just a few days ago. If the hon. member will look at Hansard I am sure that he will see the answer.

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
(Mr. Mcllraith.l
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.
['Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more important than interim supply. We will continue with the discussion of interim supply tomorrow. When it is concluded we will take up redistribution, and the labour code.']
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are dealing today, Mr. Chairman, with the third or fourth request by the government for interim supply. On this occasion it is for two months and this, of course, represents a very large amount of money. We should bear in mind, I think, that on the last occasion three months' supply was granted, and I feel it is incumbent upon members of this committee, especially in view of the fact that there is some doubt as to when the main estimates will come forward -from time to time additional items are brought in-to give this request close consideration.
If we consult a calendar we will find, if I recall correctly what a certain radio announcer said yesterday, that there are 66 or 67 days left before the end of the year. As far as this parliament is concerned it means possibly some 40 sitting days. The Minister of Fisheries, I believe, is doing some fast calculating; he is bringing in all kinds of things. If he wants to get down to a real discussion, then he and I can have one. I should like to get down to a worth-while discussion of the estimates of this government, including those of his department.
In these main estimates the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible for some $88 million, and we are asked to approve one sixth of this amount on this occasion. But there is another item, to which reference may have been made at an earlier date in this house. At the back of the esti-

mates, among the money loans, is an item of $14J million to be lent to the corporation. Considering the type of operation carried on by the C.B.C. and the financing carried on by the corporation for a number of years, how is it expected that this loan will be repaid? The total budget of the corporation is far in excess of $88 million, in fact well over $100 million; the C.B.C. has certain revenues of its own. Yet the government of Canada is asked to make up a deficiency of some $88 million for the operation in the coming year. This sum of $14J million is presumably to meet expenditures of a capital nature.
In the past such expenditures have been included within the current budget, and when the corporation sought approval of parliament for the provision of the sums it needed, those capital requirements were included in the figure shown in the estimates; there was nothing tucked away in the back of the book. This is one question we should like to have answered. How is it expected that the corporation will repay this loan, and what will be the terms thereof? It behooves us to have more information that the Secretary of State, reporting for the corporation, has given today and on previous occasions when representations have been made from this side of the house and when, I am sure, they have been made by members on the government backbenches to the effect that it is high time the broadcasting committee was reconstituted to look into the affairs and policies of the corporation.
This is not with an idea of conducting a witch hunt. Mr. Chairman, I have to laugh at the sort of coy smile that appears on the face of the Minister of Fisheries when I say that because, after all, my connections with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are far in excess of his. For three years I was parliamentary secretary to the minister who reported to this house, and I had very cordial relations with the officers and know a good deal about the operations of the corporation. Certainly in the proposals that I make today I have no idea that this house should conduct a witch hunt; that parliament should become in any way a censor of the programming of the corporation, despite the pressures that are on members of parliament by their constituents, or out of their own desire, to bring some influence to bear on the programming standards of the corporation.
This is a public body, financed by public funds, and therefore has a responsibility per-
Interim Supply
haps even greater than a similar body with a private financial structure. It has been granted a tremendous responsibility by the Broadcasting Act, and I think in the main its record has been good. The officers of the corporation would be the first to admit that a review of their philosophies with regard to programming should be aired before the public, whereby they could place their views before a committee of members from all parties of this house. This would furnish them with the appropriate forum in which they could put across the philosophies of their programming and the principles of their operations. Then members of this house could more readily appreciate the problems and complexities of the operations of such a corporation. It is a big business. I cannot understand the hesitancy on the part of the government at this time, with the rather lame duck excuses made by the Secretary of State that the corporation could not or should not at this time be available for a complete review of its operations.
After all, Mr. Chairman, when hon. members who now occupy the treasury benches were sitting on this side of the house they were always after the government of the day to have the C.B.C. appear before a committee. As a matter of fact the broadcasting committee sat in 1959 and, if I recall correctly, it sat last in 1961. Three years have elapsed since that time; certain questions were under study then, and in a committee members could far better determine what progress has been made and what difficulties have been encountered in the formulation of future programming of the corporation and the extension of its services since 1961.
But no; we are told there is an advisory committee which will report in a confidential manner to the government. This advisory committee is headed by a man who had previously sat on a commission that had to do with broadcasting and who, frankly, made some recommendations that did not work out. This committee is to report to the government. Then, apparently under a cloak of confidentiality, policy will be determined and it will then be announced. It is said that then a broadcasting committee may be set up.
Just who is the government trying to fool? This is not going to help the corporation. It has a public relations responsibility to the viewing public, to the citizens of Canada; and I am afraid that at the present time its public relations have suffered, because never have we seen so much in print, either in letters to the editor, comments in newspaper

Interim, Supply
columns, or representations by members, about the nature of programming.
I readily agree that individual members should not be in the position of acting as censors, because what is one man's meat is another man's poison. But why this disquiet? It must mean that there is an uneasiness about the philosophy at the back of certain types of programs. Let us take the field of public affairs. I personally am very concerned as to why certain individuals seem to have a prominence on many programs; that they are the ones who are invited to be interviewed; that they are people who represent far-out ideas, whether they are from the right or from the left, whether they are of a wildly non-conformist view or whether they are just plain oddballs. It seems that the smart thing to do is to guarantee them a prime forum. They represent a minuscule of opinion in this country, and they could not buy the forum they are given.
Let us look at the situation at the time of the royal visit and after those unhappy events in Quebec city. What happened in the case of the leader of a very minor group, a man who had been castigated by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Justice, by the premier of the province of Quebec, and by right thinking citizens across this country? The C.B.C. was indecently precipitate in putting him on one program called "Front Page Challenge". I am talking about the man Bourgault. Lo and behold, if that was not enough, on the Sunday night the Queen arrived in Ottawa I watched the program "This Hour has Seven Days" and one of the interviewers, with perhaps a touch of wry humour, indicated that the man who had done most to make the stay of the Queen in Quebec city unpleasant had not been able to appear on that Sunday program because he had been stopped, or he could not get to the studios because of the size of the crowds that were welcoming Her Majesty in Ottawa.
It is not that I object to the fact that a man is going to be interviewed on a program, but I do not understand why he should be allowed to use this forum. Last night the C.B.C. imported a man from the United States to Canada whose philosophy is that which was adopted by a group which many of us who served for years in Canadian armed forces, attempted to destroy. The hon. member for York South was mystified as to why he should be allowed or invited to appear.
Last year a man who had been convicted in the United States and fined thousands of

dollars, and was subject to further penalty in relation to downright dirty pornography, was brought to Canada for the purpose of interviewing him on a television program. I should like to know what is the philosophy behind this type of programming. These programs come into our living rooms, and as parents of children, who are very impressionable, we realize what detrimental effects this type of thing can have. It seems that the C.B.C. follows a policy in respect of programs whereby anything which is wrong, a deviation, or detracts from common decent morality or commonly accepted authority should be glorified.
The corporation does a great deal of good work in many fields. I hope to see it do much more work in the field of education. The C.B.C. does a great deal of good work in respect of its productions which show various areas of Canada to Canadians. It does good work in respect of its documentary productions, and in this regard it should be commended. On the other hand, are members of parliament asked to appear on C.B.C. programs to answer questions or present their views in respect of things that affect us all as Canadian citizens? That is not the case. Are members of parliament, or men in public life, asked to present their views in respect of certain films? That is not what is happening.
The thing I object to is the choice of individual who is interviewed on television. I do not know whether the officials of the C.B.C. are aware of this fact, but an individual who appears on television seems to have received a sort of seal of approval, or at least this is the impression in the minds of a great proportion of Canada's viewing public.
The hon. member for Grey North on several occasions has asked serious questions in respect of particular programs which have appeared as parts of series. Many of these programs have been highly objectionable because they are viewed by family groups. It is not sufficient to say that if we do not like or object to particular programs we should turn off the television set. That can be done, but some of the things which are shown and statements which are made are not foreseeable, and any harm that might be done will have been done before the set can be turned off. Many of these statements are made from one second to another, and one cannot avoid the possible harm by turning the set off after the objectionable things have been said.

I suggest we must receive answers to questions so that we will know why certain programs are being allowed. Many of them deal with subjects of morality. Not too many days ago on the program called "This Hour has Seven Days", individuals were interviewed about the contraceptive pill. The program contained street interviews of high school girls, and the view that these pills should be issued in high school was blithely presented. Apparently it was suggested that there is a lack of morality in our high schools, and because of human relationships these pills might just as well be made available. I wonder what could have been in the minds of the producers of this program when they allowed this expression of opinion by individuals interviewed on the streets, and what effect they think such an opinion would have on teenagers. While it may be of interest and benefit to discuss matters of this kind among adults, I can see no possible advantage in presenting this type of opinion to the people of Canada. Again I say that we must look into this situation and find out why the C.B.C. is allowing this type of program.
In this regard I should like to refer briefly to an article which appeared in today's Toronto Globe and Mail under the by-line of Dennis Braithwaite. The article is headed "Fighting Sin, C.B.C.". I do not intend to read this article, but wish to say that it is a protest by various groups against certain programs which seem to glorify sin, sexual deviation and crime. The people referred to in this article are not a group of oddballs, but are responsible citizens discharging their responsibility with respect to and concern with the things around them. The list of individuals includes members of fraternal organizations and women's organizations who are very concerned with this whole question.
During the past few years there has been a great deal of criticism in respect of the corporation because of its programming policy. Surely it is the duty of all members of this house who are charged with the safeguarding of the public interest to demand-and I do demand-an examination and a review of the C.B.C. There may be some point of view on the part of the corporation that we as individuals not connected with the broadcasting industry may not appreciate, and the corporation could put forward this view. I want to see this frank exchange of views in order to make what I think is a soundly based broadcasting organization function more efficiently.
I do not know whether the management of the corporation are deaf to the things that
Interim Supply
are said by individual citizens in regard to what is done by the corporation. Certain producers, and what have you, move in rather arty circles where views are somewhat freer and there is perhaps not quite the same appreciation of everyday morality, but the fact is their views as to what should appear on television screens and come forth from loudspeakers do not necessarily represent what is the best for Canada.
I cannot share at all the views of the Secretary of State this afternoon that the management of a corporation could not possibly cope with committee hearings. They are much more able men than that. He is actually underestimating their capacity. In addition, it is not only the top management whom we would like to question. There is within the corporation a very extensive middle echelon and I think it would be most helpful to have these people explain their operations. It is not those who work at the headquarters of the C.B.C. and live in Ottawa who determine the exact nature of a program. After all, I am sure that the president and vice presidents only become aware of certain programs if they happen to see them on the screen and then it is too late to do anything about them.
Another aspect of the corporation that we would like to examine is its facilities. What are its plans for Vancouver? We have had a lot of questions on this matter. There is already a great deal of controversy between the city of Vancouver and the corporation. Let us help resolve the matter. Let us bring it out in the open where it can be examined and where the corporation can state its point of view.
What about Montreal? Where is the corporation heading there? What is being done? What progress is being made? In this regard it is not sufficient to have the minister responsible for the corporation answer questions on the discussion of his estimates. I am sure the estimates of his department and of the corporation will be among the last to be examined by the house and they will be caught in the gallop toward adjournment. This has happened so often in the past and it can easily happen again.
What about Toronto? There is an amount of $14 million here that we want explained. When we pass the motion for interim supply we will have granted eight twelfths or perhaps nine twelfths of the total amount of the estimates. This is more than the proper time to be discussing what the corporation is going to do.

Interim Supply


The Chairman:: Order, please.


Mr. Lamberi:: If I may have a couple of minutes I shall be finished.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would refer to another point in which the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Port Arthur and a number of hon. members from Newfoundland are also most interested. I have in mind the extension of services to outlying areas. It is three years since we have had a statement of policy in this regard informing us what the corporation planned to do at that time. We should like to know what it has done in the interval and what it intends to do in the future.
In the same vein, what about colour television? This will cost the Canadian people a vast sum of money not only for facilities for the C.B.C. but with regard to the private television network and also for individual receiving sets. This is a matter on which we must have some information from the corporation.
As an individual I should also like to see what the corporation is really doing with regard to planning in the field of educational programming and co-operation with the ministries of education of the provinces. We are interested in what can be done. What use is being made of visual instruction? I know it is already being done in a limited way in the schools for certain subjects at certain levels, but I think we should really look into this matter in view of the expected great shortage of teachers.
Yesterday I was talking to a man who had come to Ottawa for the Canadian universities conference. This year the universities have been hit with the front line of that wave of students who were born in the immediate post-war years, and the universities frankly do not know whether they are going to be able to cope with the problem. Is television part of the answer in order to deal with the shortage of teachers and the shortage of plant? I think we could get a worth-while contribution from the corporation in this regard by ascertaining what its ideas are on the subject. If it has no ideas we want to know why.
For these reasons I think the government has been most remiss in refusing to accede to the legitimate demands of members of the house for the setting up of the broadcasting committee many weeks ago. In my view

a lot of the difficulties and much of the criticism on orders of the day, which will continue, would have been taken care of if we could have had a broadcasting committee. I intend to emphasize this point again and again and I am sure my colleagues are going to do the same. I do not think it is the corporation that is at fault. Rather it is the government that is at fault by refusing to accede to our request for a parliamentary committee and prefering to set up its own little confidential advisory committee. I do not think that such a committee is a good answer to our requests.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, members of this party have been asking for a parliamentary committee on broadcasting for several months. There have been a number of reasons why we felt this was necessary and many of them were repeated once more by the hon. member for Edmonton West in his remarks. If the government, and the Secretary of State in particular, continue to refuse to set up this committee it leaves those of us who feel strongly about the matter with only one alternative, that is to take advantage of these interim supply motions from time to time to air our grievances about the operations of the C.B.C., thereby taking up a lot of time that could be devoted more properly to legislation. If this committee had been set up, all of these grievances and representations could be made in the committee. What is more, Mr. Chairman, this procedure would be more beneficial because we would have not only the senior officers but other officials from the C.B.C. before us and we could get some answers to the questions we ask.
Now, over the years, particularly during the last few months, whenever questions pertaining to programming or any other aspect of C.B.C. operations are posed to the Secretary of State, who has the responsibility of answering for the C.B.C. in this house, he consistently ducks the questions by saying, "I will communicate the opinion of my hon. friend to the C.B.C." He has also been fairly consistent, Mr. Chairman, in not coming back with the answers. As I have said, this leaves us no other course of action except continually to raise these grievances on interim supply motions. The hon. member for Edmonton West repeated something that has been said in this house on a number of occasions, that is that probably the estimates of the Secretary of State, which include the C.B.C. estimates, will be introduced during the dying hours of this session when there will be a rush to complete a number of tag

ends. We can look back over the record and find that last year the C.B.C. estimates were introduced after supper-it was after seven o'clock-on the last day of the session. I cannot but believe that this was done deliberately so that there could not be opportunity, or at least it would be awkward and inconvenient to have a detailed examination of some of the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The year before that there was no detailed examination of the estimates of the C.B.C. This parliament, therefore, which is supposed to have some control of the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has been completely denied any access to the officers of this corporation for the last three years. This parliament has been denied even the opportunity of interrogating the minister when the C.B.C. was asking for nearly $100 million of the taxpayers' money. We believe this practice has gone completely beyond reason. We do have a responsibility. So far as I am concerned, I am getting tired of providing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with a blank cheque for about $100 million every year without having the C.B.C. answer to this house for what they do with it, and whether or not the people who are providing that money are satisfied with the kind of service they are getting.
There is a great deal that could be said about the kind of programming in which the C.B.C. seems to persist, regardless of the protestations they receive. I can remember for example, there were protests in this house, and by way of letters to the newspapers all over the country, regarding a program called "Quest". I believe they even started a new season of "Quest" after these protestations were received, and the program continued for many months. The government never provided us with an opportunity to examine any officer or producer, whoever it is inside the organization, as to why they insisted on keeping this kind of program. I think that the whole moral structure of that which the C.B.C. is apparently prepared to present has deteriorated to such an extent that the members of this house have not only a right but an obligation to have a good, hard look at who is perpetuating this kind of thing.
It has been repeatedly stated, but I am going to say it again because we do not get any answers. The C.B.C. is responsible directly to parliament and to no one else. But we are in fact prevented from getting a minister involved in the details of answering for the activities of the Canadian Broadcast-
Interim Supply
ing Corporation. At the same time we are denied a parliamentary committee which would give us an opportunity to send for witnesses from this organization. Now, putting these two things together simply leaves you in a ridiculous, frustrated position. I believe it is about time the government took these protestations seriously. I am convinced that resentment amongst members of this house, and amongst Canadians generally, is building up to the point where some drastic action has to be taken and the people are prepared to support this kind of drastic action against the C.B.C.
It does not seem to me it is any protection for the members of the government to refuse parliament this broadcasting committee. I cannot understand why the government persists in its position. It is providing an internal examination conducted by another so-called committee. Perhaps this committee will perform a useful function, but why this should necessarily prevent the setting up of a parliamentary committee is beyond my comprehension. What is the government afraid of? What are the officers of the C.B.C. afraid of? If they are afraid of something, we ought to have them before us. As I have said, I am not concerned with whether or not it is convenient for the senior officers of the C.B.C. to meet a parliamentary committee. To me, this has no weight at all. I feel there has been enough representation that whether or not it is convenient for them they should be called and they should be prepared to testify to the kind of action they have been taking.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these protests have come from a number of parties in the house, and have come from a number of organizations. Perhaps in some respects you may say that this stems from some dissatisfaction with what the C.B.C. does about public affairs programs and how they allocate political time. Certainly there has been room for dispute about the justice of the manner in which they handle this, but it is considerably worse than that at this time.
The hon. member for Edmonton West referred briefly to an article in today's Globe and Mail, written by Dennis Braithwaite, and I should like to deal with it in more detail as it is pertinent to the matter before us this afternoon and is in line with the resentment building up in the country. I quote from the article as follows:
Did you ever hear of an all-Canadian movement called Declaration by Canadian Women? Its purpose, which it has been pursuing among women's organizations and church groups over the past year at least, is, in the words of its manifesto, "to end

Interim Supply
the domination of a minority who misuse the C.B.C. to spread propaganda for perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, dope, violence and crime." In its general preamble, attached to a petition form, Declaration states that both radio and t.v. are being exploited to maintain a constant assault on character, to undermine faith in God and respect for law and authority and to destroy sound home life and the knowledge of right and wrong. Noting that the C.B.C. last year spent $86 million of public money, the document calls on members of parliament to make the corporation "answerable to the Canadian people." Lest anyone think this is a demand for censorship, the declaration insists that the present freedom of the C.B.C. is a form of censorship. "Those who kill the conscience of a nation dig the grave of freedom and prepare the ground for dictatorship. It begins when God-given standards are mocked and their proponents are belittled, bullied, or silenced altogether."
This might be called a fairly strong statement, but let us have a look at those supporting Declaration by Canadian Women. They are people such as Mrs. Ward Markle of Toronto, president of the Ontario section of the Catholic women's league; Mrs. J. E. Houck, of Brampton, a former UN delegate and C.B.C. director; Senator Quart of Quebec; Ethel S. Wilson, minister without portfolio in the Alberta cabinet; Mrs. G. C. V. Hewson, president, Ontario division of the Canadian mental health association; Mrs. Cora R. Casselman, former member for parliament for Edmonton East; Mrs. A. D. Keith of Winnipeg, president of the women's Christian temperance union of Canada; Mrs. Isabel Ross, a member of the board of education of Toronto and Mrs. H. M. Schweitzer, past provincial commissioner of the girl guides of Saskatchewan.
The article adds:
While the language of the declaration can be dismissed as extremist and even hysterical, these names (there are 30 in all) carry weight. How did the usually circumspect C.B.C. manage to alienate so many of those who should be its friends and supporters?
The reason it has been able to alienate a lot of high placed and reasonable thinking people is its cavalier disregard of those protestations that were made during the past few months. We have come to the point where it is without doubt the responsibility of the government to set up this committee at once, first in order to clear up this matter of the protestations and second, to exonerate, if that is possible, a crown corporation that is financed from public funds to the extent of about $100 million a year.
We as members of parliament have no right to continue to provide public funds to an organization that has fallen into the

disrepute that the C.B.C. has. It is, as I said, incomprehensible to see the government adamantly refuse to shed some light on the reason officers of the C.B.C. are continuing to allow this kind of programming.
I believe the C.B.C. has probably done more to spotlight the divisions between English and French speaking Canadians than anything else, and has done so by giving repetitious attention to the extremist viewpoints. For the most part we in this parliament consider these divisions as one of the most serious problems facing the nation, yet when protestations are made through the Secretary of State to the C.B.C. to stop providing a platform for these extremist viewpoints, we are told we must not be concerned with C.B.C. programming.
Another thing which disturbs me is the tremendous expansion of the C.B.C. If it is responsible only to parliament I would like to know where it got the authority to continue to expand year after year to its present magnitude. I have never heard anyone on the floor of this house demanding that the C.B.C. expand its activities and its budget year after year, but when I say that I must make one modification. There has been a demand for the C.B.C. to extend its broadcasting facilities through satellites in order to carry its signals into some areas that are not served by any television channel. That is a valid request for expansion, but to my knowledge no member of parliament has requested that the C.B.C. continually expand its budget.
Over the past ten or 12 years the C.B.C.'s estimates have grown from $25 million to $50 million to $70 million and are now well over $100 million annually. In this connection I would point out that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that its estimates for operations are a little deceptive, is a valid one. Prior to 1964-65 the C.B.C. has included in its estimates so much for operations and so much for capital works or the expansion of capital works. We all know very well that when it starts out on a $30 million or $40 million building in Toronto or Montreal, but only requests something like $10 million or $14 million in the first year, once we approve that initial expenditure we are hooked for the rest of it.
In addition to the matter of loans this is a complete deception because, as has been pointed out, the C.B.C. does not have any substantial income other than that voted by

parliament. So when it calls these moneys loans we know very well they will have to be paid back out of appropriations passed later by parliament. In my opinion this is not a proper way to proceed and present estimates. It is a kind of subterfuge to circumvent what may be required under the law respecting estimates, and it gives the C.B.C. the opportunity to spend more money than is indicated. These are some of the more important reasons we need the officers from the C.B.C. before us.
On a number of occasions we in this party have taken the position that there is neither a fair distribution of free political time nor objective reporting of the news from this parliament. We have seen a screen of silence come down within the C.B.C. over the activities of members of this party in the House of Commons, and we should like to have someone from the C.B.C. explain why this is being done. I know that members of the Social Credit party have been most vociferous in their criticism of the corporation. We do not apologize for that. What is more, we intend to continue this criticism in line with what we consider to be our responsibility. If this is some kind of revenge being practised on this party in the allocation of free political time and also in the imposition of a news blackout upon us, those concerned may as well know now that we do not intend to be intimidated by actions of this kind. I have asked the Secretary of State in this house at least three times to tell me how the C.B.C. allocates time to the various political parties on both the national and the provincial scene. The program on the national level is, I believe, called "The Nation's Business" and at provincial level it is called "Provincial Affairs", at least in Alberta.
I happen to know that in some years, 1961 and 1962 particularly, there was a difference of as much as 61 to one. Yet when the C.B.C. allocated time on "Provincial Affairs" in Alberta they gave the same time to the party with one member in the provincial legislature as they did to the party which had 61 members. I happen to know that one of the conditions they laid down before any time was granted on the national scene was that a party should have some members in the House of Commons. Yet there were occasions in Alberta in the "Provincial Affairs" program when free time was given to speakers belonging to a party which did not have a single member in the provincial legislature. My hon. friend from Cariboo tells me it is that way in British Columbia now.
Interim Supply
This is not fair, and we have asked time and again: who is it who sets down the formula? Who makes the decisions, and why are they not consistent as between one area and another or one province and the next? The Social Credit party to my knowledge has not been provided with any free time on "Provincial Affairs" broadcasts in any province where it has no elected members. Yet we find parties in Alberta and B.C., parties which have no members in the legislatures, being given time. Why? Who sets up the formula? Who decides these things? We never get answers from the Secretary of State or from his parliamentary secretary who replies from time to time. We want to get answers to these questions. We do not want to be dismissed with elusive remarks and perhaps a smile. To us this is a serious matter. We believe that when we are called upon to provide $100 million for a public broadcasting system and are told consistently that this corporation is responsible to parliament and to parliament alone, there should be some opportunity for the members of this parliament to interrogate the officers of the corporation. That ought to be clear. It does not seem to me that there is any ambiguity about that request. But still the government adamantly refuses to set up the committee to enable us to look into this question.
There are many other questions which should be asked. The committee should look into allegations concerning the management of news; allegations with respect to the type of individual who is asked to appear on public affairs programs. We should like to find out why certain patterns are followed. No one can deny that this forum which is provided by the C.B.C. does have a profound influence on public opinion in Canada. Certainly, if it does not, it is a complete failure because it is one of the major media of communication with the masses in Canada. So it seems to me that the government could save itself a lot of headache and a lot of time on interim supply motions if it would move quickly to set up this parliamentary committee on broadcasting and clear the air with regard to some of the allegations which have been made. Serious allegations made by very responsible people have not been dealt with.
Members of the opposition have been criticized for taking too much time in the House of Commons on supply motions and other matters. If the way in which the government has handled the queries which have come to it concerning the C.B.C. is to continue there will certainly be a lot more time taken up. I heard it said this afternoon that a lot of time

Interim Supply
could be saved in the question period preceding orders of the day if the government would agree to set up this committee, and I believe this to be a fact. Indeed as the days go by I am sure more questions will be asked before orders of the day are called, and a lot more time will be used to discuss matters on the floor of this house unless we are given an opportunity to examine some of the officers of the corporation.
I cannot understand why the government appears to be protecting the C.B.C. at the present time. Our examination of the officials need not interfere in any way with the work of this other committee, this secret committee or whatever you want to call it, which the government itself has set up. Even if we did not receive satisfactory answers from the officials of the C.B.C. to the extent that we could revise the relationship between the corporation and members of this house, at least we would have the opportunity to indicate to those officials the opinions coming to us from the people we represent. This process is the essence of democracy as far as I am concerned. Asking members of this house to provide money for a corporation while at the same time refusing them an opportunity to examine the affairs of that corporation is, to me, the exact opposite of democratic procedure. So I hope the government will understand that there is increasing pressure to establish this parliamentary committee, and the sooner they get on with it the sooner we will be able to have some time and clear up some of the business before the house.


Mr. Choqueife:: I have but a few comments to make, Mr. Chairman. Further to the previous speaker's remarks, I would point out that members on this side of the house have no objection whatever to seeing those of the opposition do their duty.
I think many hon. members would benefit greatly by being a bit more concise in their remarks. Some of them go on until their time has run out, when they could easily cut down what they have to say to ten or 15 minutes. As for me, I should like to give evidence of such conciseness in the points I wish to make in this debate.
Last Friday during the debate on interim supply the house dealt with C.N.R. lines. Today we are discussing the C.B.C. For my part, I feel that the most important problem facing us now is that of national unity. That is why I should like to take the opportunity afforded me by the examination of interim supply to express a few ideas.

In my opinion, what is missing in our country at present is the development of a Canadian ideal. Regionalism is showing itself here and there across Canada. Often an excessive provincialism also manifests itself. I feel it would be much more in keeping with this desire to achieve the Canadian ideal to look after, if not the creation, at least the consolidation of a Canadian ideal.
What is a Canadian ideal? If it can be summed up schematically, it is an ideal according to which one believes in the expansion and dissemination of the two fundamental cultures of our country. Many speeches are heard on both sides. Speeches intended to proclaim equality of rights, speeches intended to illustrate the greatness and beauty of our two national cultures. However, on the practical level, tremendous deficiencies become evident.
This is why I feel it is urgent-and this becomes imperative for the federal government-to work unceasingly on this task, in order to create, to consolidate and to strengthen a Canadian ideal.
Today Canadians co-operate mainly for economic purposes. But we need more than solidarity on the economic level. I believe that we should all acquire a deep patriotic ideal, which at present does not exist.
As far as I am concerned, I would approve the federal government taking the initiative in this area, because if it is held in suspicion among French speaking Canadians, it is due to the fact that it was realized and it is still being realized that the federal government does not seem interested in promoting French culture. What the French Canadians obtain, they always gain after bitter demands, often after recriminations, and we are wondering if this complex of recrimination is not being forced into us; at times, this becomes an exhausting task.
In my opinion, the federal government must assume a determining initiative in the area of national unity. It could, for instance, create a department of French culture, as a division perhaps of the Secretary of State department. There is nothing contrary to this in our constitution. The emergency created today by the stormy events of the last several months certainly indicates a crisis in our national unity, and we know that according to our constitution, peace, order and good administration in Canada fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This department of French culture would not in any way violate any provision of our constitution, because the Massey-Levesque commission

established very fine shades, subtle distinctions between the area of education and that of primary and secondary education, which falls exclusively and which will always fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces; distinctions made between the field of education and that of culture as such.
That is why, in my opinion, it would be quite consistent with our constitution for the federal government to take the initiative in this area by creating a department of French culture and thereby take advantage of the new spirit in this regard. This must be pointed out, in order to pay tribute to those who show this fine attitude. Attention must be drawn to this new climate which prevails in a goodly part of the English speaking population, which today shows a far greater understanding of the French fact than it did some 25 or 30 years ago.
For my part, I must say that within the Liberal party-I do not wish to make a political issue of this, but I must say that I could not feel more at ease than I do within the Liberal party, and I feel that this spirit of mutual understanding, which is favourable to biculturalism, is due in the first place to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson.)
Mr. Chairman, while establishing a department of culture, we could refer to some figures which are most significant and promote the French culture from coast to coast, instead of limiting it to Quebec.
Statistics show that, in all provinces of the country, there is a French fact. It is more or less powerful, according to the demographic strength of the various provinces. So, may I point out to you that, in Prince Edward Island, 8.8 per cent of the population is French speaking, in Nova Scotia, 6.9 per cent is French speaking, in Manitoba, 8.2 per cent, in Alberta, the figure is lower, but still significant, 4.7 per cent. In British Columbia, 3.6 per cent. In Ontario, figures are a little more comforting, that is 9.4 per cent; in New Brunswick, 37.8 per cent of the population is French speaking.
What part would a department of French culture play? Its importance would be as follows:	I quoted figures relating to the
French speaking population in the various provinces; if one now refers to the people of French origin, one notes a set-back, because many people of French origin in certain provinces can no longer speak French. Therefore, a certain assimilation took place. I do not hesitate to say that the Durham report belongs to the past.
Interim Supply
There is no question today of assimilating the French speaking population. On the contrary, this new climate which should make us happy, instead of promoting this assimilation, tends more to encourage the development and the growth of the French fact.
Mr. Chairman, assimilation has been fairly intensive in all provinces. In Prince Edward Island, for instance, 16.6 per cent of the population is of French origin but only 8.8 per cent speak French. In Nova Scotia, 12 per cent of the people are of French origin but only 6.9 per cent of them are French speaking. In New Brunswick, 38.8 per cent of the population is of French origin but only 37.8 per cent speak French, there being a loss of 1 per cent in that province.
In the province of Ontario, 10.3 per cent of the people are of French origin but only 9.4 per cent of them are French speaking. Comparative figures for Manitoba are 9.1 and 8.2 per cent. The situation is the same in the other provinces.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, so as to put an end to this assimilation movement, to promote an atmosphere of national unity, to show that the great principles we advocate with regard to bilingualism and biculturalism do not remain meaningless and empty statements, I think it is time, now more than ever, for the federal government to stop being: suspected of furthering assimilation, since on the contrary the federal government must strive by all available means to keep these-two cultures, these two civilizations in our country more flourishing than ever.
I would add a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, in order to accomplish which seems to me the-most urgent task: There is a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism whose terms of reference in my opinion, should be-extended to include a study of a vital and essential problem, i.e. immigration.
As we know, immigration is the chief instrument through which the French cause-could be served, for immigration can affect the population pattern in this country. At the-present time, immigration could be one of the greatest instruments at our disposal. I said it again and again, and repeat it once more today, immigration has always operated against the French fact.
I believe immigration is a vital problem* and the terms of reference of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism should be broadened to include a study of' this serious problem, as it affects national-unity and the French fact, so that a fair

Interim Supply
balance might exist and that French Canada be no longer victimized by our immigration policy.
There is another instrument which can be beneficial to French Canada. I refer to television, which comes under the Secretary of State and to which there could be added another branch, that of French culture. Television could then play a leading part and be beneficial to us.
I believe that in promoting the French fact we shall create that climate of national unity which is becoming more and more essential at this juncture.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat brought certain aspects of this debate to your attention and to the attention of this committee. I noticed particularly that he related his remarks to the actions of the C.B.C., the biculturalism and bilingualism commission, to immigration and to a new spirit of cooperation. He also suggested that a new minister be appointed in respect of the C.B.C. The hon. member also referred to contributions to French culture, and called attention to certain percentages.
At this time I do not mention these items by way of criticism, but should like to point out that in spite of the fact that on many occasions during past weeks, months and even years when these questions have been asked, the minister responsible to parliament for the operation of the C.B.C. has not been in his place. That is a significant fact which should be brought to the attention of this committee, and possibly to the attention of the public as a whole. I think the public should be made aware of the situation, in view of the fact that this crown corporation is asking us to approve, by passing these estimates an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $88 million. I should like to remind this committee that these are tax dollars, and we are only discussing a portion of them today. The hon. member for Edmonton West earlier today drew attention to capital loans in the amount of $14,500,000. To use the vernacular, Mr. Chairman, that ain't hay.
I have in my hand an article written by an individual closely associated with broadcasting, which relates directly to certain points I should like to refer to this afternoon. Basically this article dealing with broadcasting principles, particularly of the C.B.C., reads in part as follows:

In principle, it is parliament which determines the roles of the various elements within the Canadian broadcasting system. However, in practice-
I should like to repeat that for emphasis, Mr. Chairman.
However, in practice parliament has confined itself to the declaration of certain broad national objectives without offering many specific instructions concerning how the goals are to be achieved. For the most part, it is content to examine, and usually approve, methods devised by others.
For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has placed its own interpretation on its simply worded parliamentary mandate to provide "a national broadcasting service". The corporation has devised policies, which, in its judgment, meet this requirement and these it refers, periodically, to parliament for endorsation. Since the corporation's inception, this procedure has been a significant feature of its operations. It has been followed consistently, and without serious parliamentary criticism. Consequently, the C.B.C. is justified in assuming that it is interpreting its role correctly.
Mr. Chairman, after this quotation from a prominent broadcaster in respect of his interpretation of the C.B.C.'s role in the Canadian broadcasting system I should like to refer to specific cases, to which almost violent objection has been taken both in this and that other place, as a result of representations by Canadian citizens. I should like also to refer to specific statements which have been made both during the question period and during the debate in this committee this afternoon. I refer again to this sentence from the quotation: "It has been followed consistently, and without serious parliamentary criticism". This can hardly be so, Mr. Chairman. As the member for one constituency it would be my conclusion that in some cases the C.B.C. has almost flagrantly disregarded public opinion. As I pointed out earlier, almost violent representations have been made to members, and I will put some of them on the record later.
There is also a general misunderstanding among the Canadian public with regard to the very conception of a crown corporation. We as members of the house understand what is really meant when it is said that the C.B.C. or any other crown corporation is subject to parliamentary control. But there is general misunderstanding among the Canadian people with regard to the C.B.C. in particular and this may be because people are so much more familiar with the actions of this crown corporation. The average Canadian citizen or taxpayer has the impression that control of the C.B.C. by parliament may be obtained by a mere objection or prayer or petition to his representative in parliament. Few people realize that control by parliament actually means control by the government in

the first instance, second, by the House of Commons and, third, by the other place. Very few people indeed realize that there has to be a combination of expression of views by all three before the management of the crown corporation really listens to parliament.
We had a good example earlier today in connection with Canadian National Railways. How many times and for how long have objections been raised in the house with regard to the C.N.R. which as a crown corporation is in my view almost identical to the C.B.C.? For a long, long time in committee of the whole house we have heard objections about certain aspects of the management of the C.N.R. But what happened? Actually the situation was allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that the railway personnel had to take action which resulted in service to the people being curtailed.
When was the control finally exercised by parliament? Earlier today there was tabled in the house a communication between the Prime Minister and the head of the crown corporation. After years of representations and many complaints, only then did the crown corporation come close to being controlled by parliament and even then the control was temporary.
In my view the government, or at least the minister responsible for reporting to the house for the C.B.C., should take note of some of the things that have been said today. I have pointed out the final reaction with regard to complaints and disputes about one corporation, and in so far as the C.B.C. is concerned I hope that things do not have to proceed to that point in order to have the management of the C.B.C. at least listen to some of the complaints made in parliament, particularly by people who feel that such a crown corporation should be controlled by parliament. After all, the people who are elected to represent the taxpayers of Canada certainly should be listened to with regard to crown corporations more so than has been the case for some time past.
I mentioned earlier that revisions in C.B.C. programming have only been made in some cases, not all, after almost violent objections by decent, intelligent citizens. If I may, I should like to put something on the record in this regard. The letter to which I wish to refer has to do with a program no longer broadcast but it bears on the point we are talking about today. The letter is signed, is from Lethbridge and is dated February 26 of 20220-597
Interim Supply
this year. It is addressed to me as a member of parliament and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you to complain about that program "Quest".
I know this is old hash but it does bear on the point I am trying to make this afternoon.
I think it is the most filthy program I have ever seen and last night it was terrible. Everybody around here is disgusted. It makes you ashamed to be a Canadian. It is no good writing to the C.B.C. They have had so many letters and pay no attention to it. I think it should be taken off the air. It is surely no program for teenagers. If you have not seen it, especially last night's, I wish you could.
I might interject that I did not see the program.
Usually we turn "Quest" off, but we left it on last night and it was disgusting. I can't understand the players. Don't they feel embarrassed playing parts in a thing like that? I thought I would write to you and see if there is anything you can do. Thanking you for your time...
P.S. There have been a lot of people here talking over telephone this morning and everybody is disgusted with last night's "Quest" program. The C.B.C. have quite a lot of good programs.
I want to emphasize that too, Mr. Chairman. The C.B.C. has a lot of good programs.
Why spoil it by putting on things like last night's?
That brings up another point, and may I say I do not mean to be completely critical, Mr. Chairman. Many Canadians, I among them, are very proud of the corporation, particularly because of the fact that service was made possible long ago to people who might not yet have either radio or television broadcasting service. The position of the corporation has been jealously guarded and I think it should continue to be. However, the corporation also has a primary responsibility in that it has a captive audience and therefore the corporation must give first place to its primary responsibility. In my view its primary responsibility encompasses such things as educational programs, factual programs, factual reporting of the news and so on.
The hon. member for Edmonton West brought forward a good point when he mentioned education by television. In the more remote areas, this applies to radio as well. I think we could go even further than that and refer to the impact that television and radio have today on the written word. I believe that the power of the written word is still the most powerful influence today. Not only do we have a responsibility in so far as television and radio are concerned, therefore, but television and radio have a respon-

Interim Supply
sibility today with regard to their influence on the press, as we commonly refer to the written word. This, to me, is very important.
In order to emphasize what I said earlier, I want to refer to a current happening. The Canadian people have the idea, with regard to the C.B.C. as well as other crown corporations, that this parliament shall determine the various roles of the various elements within the Canadian structure. I said in the beginning, and I want to repeat this, that if parliament is to control or even to consider the role the C.B.C. and other crown corporations have in the general Canadian structure, then why is the minister responsible for reporting to parliament on the C.B.C. absent when we are discussing this matter?


George James McIlraith: I will explain that in a moment.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Now?


George James McIlraith: No, as soon as the hon. member completes his remarks.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hope it will be a good explanation and I appreciate hearing from the minister. Nevertheless this question will be a matter of record today. The hon. member who spoke before me mentioned some new ideas. They were good ideas. I agree with them, probably with the exception of his reference to a percentage of French and English. I am not talking about that, I am talking as a Canadian. I am thinking of Canada as a whole. I do not care about percentages here and there. Some of the best friends I have are probably members of smaller groups. Perhaps hon. members in the house at the moment belong to one of the larger groups but, Mr. Chairman, I have no idea whatever of referring to these percentages. I am talking about Canada as a whole and the benefits to be derived by Canada as a whole. If other hon. members want to refer to this topic in terms of percentages, then whatever I have to say I am quite sure will not have any bearing on these percentages.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I dislike hearing Canadians referred to in terms of percentages. I think Canadians are Canadians. I feel, too, that we have something of which we should be very proud. I feel that our constitution, the British North America Act, or however you want to refer to it, is something of which Canadians as a whole from one end of this country to the other can be very proud.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Say that to the member for Three Rivers.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I will say that to any member in this house. I am putting it on the record and I am quite sure it will be public. I say sincerely and honestly that we in this house, the members in the other place, and the people of Canada can be proud of our articles of confederation, the British North America Act, the constitution or whatever you want to call it. It is something of which we should not only be proud but something we should advertise. It might very well be, Mr. Chairman, that the C.B.C. could have done this a couple of weeks ago. We have something of which we can be proud and something to show the rest of the world. Sure, we have our troubles, and we have people right here talking about percentages. Surely we, as Canadians, we in this house, have something of which we can be very proud and we should advertise it to the whole world. The C.B.C. could well have done so some time ago and Canada's image throughout the world would be better than it is today.
I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, for getting sidetracked but I felt very sincerely that I had to say these things. I thank the hon. member opposite for reminding me of this because it was away down in my notes.


Auguste Choquette: We did not want you to miss anything important.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: How much more important could anything be? If you have a different version, I will gladly yield the floor to you.


Auguste Choquette: You are right.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: O.K., then; keep smiling and we will get through.
There is something else that I want to mention, and I referred to it a moment ago. I should like to refer to the Queen's visit. We have to realize that during this time the sovereign probably could have been humiliated to some extent. I am rather hesitant about bringing this matter forward, but I do feel that I must. I just said a moment ago that the C.B.C. might have done something along this line.
I note from a popular magazine and from the press that there were 400 reporters from the C.B.C. alone reporting the visit of Her Majesty to Quebec city, and I am reminded of the fact that many years ago, and under different circumstances, a club known as the 400 club was formed. I wonder if the C.B.C. is trying to form a new 400 club. There were 400

reporters there, but what did we see and what did we hear?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Did the hon. member say 400 reporters or 400 employees?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I said 400 newsmen-reporters.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I thought the hon. member meant employees.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: No, I said reporters covering the event-reporters, cameramen. Perhaps I should have said employees-but 400 personnel were there.


Mr. Habel:: Four hundred C.B.C. men?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Four hundred men, including cameramen, copymen-


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Employees.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: All right, employees. It is the same thing; 400 C.B.C. personnel.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Where?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: At Quebec. If any hon. members opposite want to give their version I will yield the floor to them. Some of them may have other facts and if they want to put their version on the record I will let them. Does anybody deny that the C.B.C. had 400 personnel at the Quebec visit?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Not reporters.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I said personnel.


Gilles Grégoire: No, you said reporters.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Admittedly I said reporters, but quite frankly I meant personnel.


Gilles Grégoire: Why did you say reporters?


Auguste Choquette: Because he meant personnel.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Were you there?


Auguste Choquette: In Quebec, yes.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, I may have made a little mistake, but may I continue. Roughly there were 400 there. I am not going to say 399 or 400 or 401 because members opposite might get the facts and say there were 398 or 402 and I would be shown to be wrong; but generally speaking there were 400 personnel from the C.B.C. covering Her Majesty's Quebec visit. What did the Canadian public get from this?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman,-


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The point I want to make-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.
20220-597J
Interim Supply


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is he familiar with the answer given today to question No. 2,148?


Auguste Choquette: I think Her Majesty deserves more personnel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am not familiar with the answer to that question, but what does it have to do with this point? I agree Her Majesty deserves more than that, but the point I am trying to make is that I think she deserves better results from that number of personnel.


Auguste Choquette: I have never seen anyone attack Her Majesty the way you did.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and advise him his time has expired.


Mr. MacNaught:: Let him continue.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We like you.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Thank you very much. It is very seldom I get that sort of agreement. The point I want to make is that what we saw on t.v., heard on the radio and read in the press was not the actual facts of the case. I know the press will criticize what I have been saying today and will refer to one short program that showed us what actually took place. But generally speaking throughout the period of the visit what we were shown were empty streets, the lack of flags flying and that sort of thing. True enough there was one short program, I think it was on "News Magazine", that reported the visit fully, but surely we could have had more than that. Earlier I said something should have been done in the matter of public relations. There should have been programs dealing with confederation, the B.N.A. Act and the things of which Canada has reason to be proud. We did not see that; we did not hear it; we did not read it.
I want to thank hon. members for the extra time they have allowed me.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to interject a few remarks at this point in the proceedings to remind the committee of one or two relevant facts as I see them, with which some members may not agree, but which I think should be drawn to the attention of the committee. Before doing so, however, I wish to answer a question asked by

Interim Supply
the hon. member for Lethbridge who has just resumed his seat. He asked why the minister responsible to the house for the C.B.C. was not here to discuss these estimates. The answer is very clear, that we are not now discussing the main estimates. We are merely discussing interim supply for the expenditure of moneys for a two month period.
The detailed estimates of departments are examined by the committee of the whole house and may be approved or rejected as the committee sees fit. That being the situation, it has not been the custom in this parliament to have the individual ministers come to the committee discussing interim supply to answer for their departments. Rather it has been the custom-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes, in just a moment. Rather, it has been the custom to discuss the details of the estimates when they are before the house and to discuss on interim supply any major grievance against the administration that the opposition parties may have. That is the reason why the individual ministers are not here to answer for their individual departments and for the details of the individual items involved in the main estimates.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the President of the Privy Council not recall the many instances when he and his colleagues were on this side and they used to try to castigate a former minister of finance on this particular point?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I recall that experience very well and I have based my remarks on it. I recall how careful the opposition of that day was to confine its attack on the then government, on one occasion for its failure to bring in a budget in a fiscal year, and on another occasion for certain matters having to do with the Bank of Canada. I recall very well how careful the opposition was, not to discuss the details of the main estimates on interim supply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is nonsense.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is entitled to his opinion of my remarks. I might remind him that I did him the courtesy when he was speaking of not expressing my opinion of the remarks he was making earlier this afternoon. I thought that was the courteous procedure to follow in committee of the whole. I refrained from any comment while he was speaking. I
[Mr. Mcllraith.1
know he follows a different procedure but that is his privilege and his responsibility-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. gentleman's halo hangs heavy.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I do wish to point out to the committee, and I believe it is my obligation to do so although some hon. members may differ from me on this, that we have now, in this session of parliament, had supply before the house on some 72 days out of a total of 176; that we have been calling estimates for consideration three days out of five every week, with one exception, for many weeks in the recent past, and that in the United Kingdom parliament the time allowed for supply is only some 26 days for the whole year, though I agree the procedure followed there differs from our procedure in Canada. If the government is devoting three days out of five to supply, surely on interim supply we should not be discussing details of the estimates of particular departments? I invite the committee to consider that notwithstanding the fact that some 70 full days debate on supply have taken place this year-I point out in all fairness that instead of taking the permitted 12 days on supply motions the opposition only required seven days out of 12 and generously gave up five days-notwithstanding the fact I have mentioned, we have only succeeded in approving the estimates of only eight departments out of some 26.
I would point out, also, that though today we have been discussing the affairs of the C.B.C. almost exclusively, no opposition group has requested that the estimates of the C.B.C. be called before the committee of the whole when we are considering main estimates. If the opposition wants to discuss these estimates they can be brought forward on a convenient day very soon and I invite members of this committee to consider whether we should not do better if we were to pass this interim supply bill now and devote the time we would otherwise spend on it, considering main estimates. If there are any suggestions which would expedite the final passage of the main estimates, which hon. members opposite in any of the groups or parties wish to make which would bring to a conclusion the examination of the estimates within a reasonable length of time, bearing in mind that we have already spent 70 days on supply this year, the government would be very willing to listen to such suggestions and consider them very carefully. I feel it is my obligation to bring this matter to the attention of hon. members because it must be readily apparent that in the light of the legislative program on

the order paper and with the approach of Christmas, having had no adjournment since the house started its work earlier this year, some thought should surely be given to the subject. I make this appeal to hon. members because it seems to me, having listened attentively and carefully to the debate this afternoon, that the whole of the discussion might better have taken place on the main estimates.
It was a different situation on Friday when hon. members felt they needed to raise a subject matter of urgent and special significance which could not wait until the main estimates were called. But we have three days on estimates this week and if hon. members have suggestions for additional days in the week, for calling and considering estimates I would be very glad to have their proposals considered by the government. I make an appeal to hon. members to consider this matter and, if they have any views on it, to bring them forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, after the remarks which have just been made by the President of the Privy Council I would not have proceeded with my observations had I not noticed that two or three other members were rising at the same time. Indeed, I find myself indulging in a sentence which opens many speeches in this house, namely, "I had not intended to take part in this debate, but-
However, it seems to me that even the devil deserves an advocate. The devil in question may not appreciate my being the advocate but I do feel something should be said in this day's debate on the other side of the issue, as far as the C.B.C. is concerned. The fact is that every speech on this subject this afternoon has been a speech in which the C.B.C. has been treated as a popular whipping boy. It is true the C.B.C. makes mistakes from time to time; it would probably go on making mistakes even were it to listen to the criticisms voiced in this house. But there are one or two things which might be said on the other side.
First of all, I want to congratulate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on being the subject of controversy. If there were no controversy surrounding the C.B.C., if nobody complained about anything which appeared on the C.B.C. programs, it would not be worth five cents of public money. It is to the credit of the corporation that it is presenting challenging programs, that it is making us look at new ideas. It is to its credit that people are expressing their views pro and
Interim Supply
con about what appears on C.B.C. television programs or over its radio network. There are times when I myself am critical of some of the things I hear and see and, like other members of this house, I do not think the C.B.C. gives me proper coverage for my work in the House of Commons. But the C.B.C. is like the press in that respect. We are used to that.


An hon. Member:: You will get it, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall just have to wait and see. Surely this is a time in man's history when it is necessary for us to do some new thinking. Some of the great organizations of our time are going through agonizing reappraisals of their thought, their doctrine and their position. This is of great importance both for them and for our society. I believe that to the extent the C.B.C. presents to us new ideas and makes us look at the problems of our country, of our hemisphere, of our world and, indeed, one might say today, of our universe, it is doing us a service.
This does not mean we are denied the right to be critical of some of the programs which are broadcast. However, I think there should also be an occasional word of commendation and I welcome this opportunity to voice that word at this moment. I doubt whether the argument over last night's program in which this fellow Rockwell appeared will ever be settled. There will be those who will contend as long as we recall it that it should not have been put on. There will be others who will think it was a good idea to put on this program. I shall not at this moment try to settle that argument one way or another, but since so much has been said against the Rockwell interview having been aired over television, may I suggest there could be some advantage from its having been broadcast? Surely the Canadian people now realize what racism can lead to; surely we have had a picture of how serious can be anti-Semitism, antipathy toward negroes, toward coloured races, toward people who disagree with us. Surely people can realize that Hitlerism, so far as its ideas are concerned, is not necessarily dead because world war II is over.
I fully appreciate the views of the Zionist organization of Canada and of the Royal Canadian Legion and others, who still wonder whether that program should have been aired last night-and it is a good question; but I suggest there is also the other side, and that maybe it has helped us in Canada to realize that we want no part of racism, of totalitarianism or of the kind of arrogance

Interim Supply
that was displayed by that man on our television screens last night. John Drainie's prediction, so far as I am concerned, was correct; I was shocked, sickened and disturbed by what I saw. But I dare to believe that Canadians generally will have been so shocked, sickened and disturbed that there will be an increasing opposition to any form of racism in this country.
There have been many appeals this afternoon to the government to set up a committee on broadcasting so that the C.B.C. can appear before that committee. I agree that there ought from time to time to be reviews of broadcasting policy. I think, indeed, that once in a while there has to be a review by a royal commission-not just by a private advisory committee such as we now have, but a full-dress royal commission. I also think that from time to time there has to be a review by a committee of parliament. This is the way you keep broadcasting by a public body responsible to parliament and, through parliament, responsible to the people. But in between these reviews I insist that the board of governors, the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, should be free to arrange its programming and should not be subject to censorship by the government; neither should it be subject to interference in its day to day programming by members of parliament. We are free to make our complaints; we are as free as any citizens of the country-but surely, having set up a corporation to do a job, having given it the policies we think it should carry on, we should give it the opportunity to carry on those policies. If we do not like them, if we disagree with the things that are being done, our function is to get rid of the board of governors, to get rid of the management and bring in new people to do the job.
It is very common in this house to talk about the way things are done in Britain. As members are probably aware, the activities of the B.B.C. are not even permitted to be the subject of the kind of questioning, in the House of Commons at Westminster, that goes on here in the House of Commons in Ottawa. There the attitude is taken that the B.B.C. is set up as an autonomous body, and in between the times its work is reviewed it is free to do what it thinks is the best job in broadcasting, subject to the knowledge that if it does not do a job that is satisfactory to the people, the management will be changed, the board will be fired. It seems to me that should be our approach, rather than the attitude of heckling at and carping

about the C.B.C. day in and day out, as goes on in this house.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that seems inconsistent with the opening remarks I offered when I congratulated the C.B.C. on being the subject of controversy. But if it is going to be attacked, not only in letters to the editors of our newspapers, not only in the columns our columnists write and in editorials, but also here on the floor of the House of Commons-and I take no objection to the criticism because I think it is good that members stand up and express their clear and honest views about what is happening-I suggest there is also a place for those of us on the other side, who feel that the C.B.C. is doing a good job, to say so in the course of a debate of this kind.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I think that the C.B.C., like any other organization run by human beings, has made many mistakes. Sometimes its public relations are rather poor. I think sometimes its advance announcements as to what is going to be broadcast have not been fully thought out. I believe, like anybody who advertises his products, the C.B.C. sometimes overemphasizes what is coming and the show it has not boosted turns out to be better than the show that has been boosted for a week or so. But in the main this organization is trying to help Canadians to think; it is trying to help us look at the problems which face this country; it is trying to bring to the radio and television audiences the things that are happening in this country; it is trying to give our artists, performers, speakers, and so on, the opportunity to put forward their views. I think that in the main the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is doing a good job. It deserves to be looked at critically; but it also deserves once in a while to be told that it is doing a good job.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


John James Greene: The hon. member stated that the C.B.C. should be criticized when it abuses its licence, when it brings forth programs that deal with hatred; but I gathered from his remarks earlier that he did not think this criticism should come from members of parliament. Am I correct in believing that he feels they should be criticized by anyone but members of parliament?


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, Mr. Chairman, whether or not a program on C.B.C. is one

that deserves negative criticism is of course a matter of opinion. But if I did not make myself clear before, I thank the hon. member for Renfrew South for giving me this opportunity to make myself clear. I believe it is perfectly proper for members of parliament to voice their criticism in a debate such as this, provided we do not dictate to the C.B.C. what it should do; but my main point is that, with everybody else expressing negative criticism, I thought there should also be opportunity for someone to express positive criticism, and that is what I have tried to do.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
["Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.\nAt six o'clock the committee took recess."]
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, before the supper hour we were privileged to hear a few words from the minister, the hon. member for Ottawa West. It seemed to me that he was complaining that we were discussing the C.B.C. today because he thought that the details should be discussed at some other time. As I listened to the debate today it did not seem to me that we were discussing the details, but a broad outline of a policy under which the C.B.C. might be a more effective instrument on behalf of the Canadian public. It was very strange that the minister should change his mind so soon, because only on Friday a matter was referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Melville, which the minister at that time thought did not deserve enough attention to set aside the normal business of the house, but that the details of that matter should be gone into during our consideration of interim supply.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member does not want to misrepresent me. The proceedings of Friday are on record, and he will find that what took place is quite different from what he is asserting, in so far as the record represents what I put forward. What I did suggest was that since there was an opportunity to discuss what was the major complaint of the opposition concerning the government on interim
Interim Supply
supply later in the afternoon it should proberly be discussed then, rather than on a special motion to adjourn the house.
The point I made today is that since we are discussing the C.B.C. estimates, the proper place to discuss them is during the consideration of the main estimates and not on interim supply. That statement was accompanied by my offer to have the main estimates brought forward, since we are already giving three days a week to a consideration of them.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the minister has aptly defended my point, because the details of the C.B.C. have not been discussed. We have been discussing general policy. He has come to the defence of the position I have taken. I think the record of last Friday will indicate in no uncertain terms that that is the case. However, I do not intend to go into that phase of the discussion at all tonight, Mr. Chairman.
At this time we are being asked to vote $740 million for the carrying forward of the government's program for the next two months. Naturally the opposition must ask itself why it should vote this money. As I asked myself that question tonight I found it very difficult indeed to find any reason why the government opposite should be given $740 million necessary to carry on the business of this country for the next two months, and I make that statement because of the conditions which exist in this country today.
Mr. Chairman, one need only look back to last Friday and what happened at that time to realize that this government never moves until it is almost too late to consider problems which deserve attention. I think that fact is made clear by the action taken over the week end by the minister and the government, and indicates that the debate which took place last Friday could very well have been dispensed with had this government done its duty in regard to the particular matter under consideration at that time. I refer to the railway problem.
The problems affecting agriculture today, and I think immediately of the plight of the turkey growers of this country, and the government's lack of action, represent one reason for not voting confidence in the government, but for withholding supply. The decline in the price being paid for cattle across this country and the lack of action on the part of the government is another indication of why steps should be taken to withhold interim supply from the government opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Interim Supply


Edward Nasserden: I note there are some hon. members who represent the areas concerned, where there has been crop failure in eastern Canada and in parts of the province of Quebec, and I should like to ask you, sir, what this government is providing in this vote of $740 million for the relief of those people? One need only think of the dairy problems in eastern Canada today to ask what this government has done to alleviate that situation.
When we pick up our daily newspapers these days what do we see? We see an indication by this government opposite that there is to be a tax cut some time in the near future. This announcement is only a belated reparation of the damage done to the economy of the country by the Gordon budgets, which brought forward an 11 per cent sales tax which is stifling industry, to a certain extent, and reducing the full impact of increasing employment which could have been ours had the government followed the policy which should have been followed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: That is another indication of the carelessness of hon. members opposite. When one thinks of the $740 million required by the government to run the affairs of this country for two months, he at the same time can only think of inflation and the alarming increase in the cost of living which today is eroding the value of the Canadian dollar to consumers in every part of the country. When one thinks of the situation, bearing in mind the tremendous increase in consumer credit in this country today, he cannot but ask what action the government opposite is proposing to meet that situation? One need only travel to any part of Canada today to realize the tightening application of taxation measures on the books today, as they are applied to individuals and corporations.
Mr. Chairman, I could cite scores of examples, almost all of which indicate that the government opposite is reaching unrelentingly to obtain every last dollar it can on almost any pretence it can find. This afternoon the minister made some reference to the approach of Christmas and I thought that he thought he could perhaps bring about a mellowness in the chamber that would cut short this debate and thus infringe upon the responsibility of members of the opposition to question the government on the measures and courses they are now following. One need only ask: As Christmas approaches, what is the situation that faces the thousands of Canadians who
during the past year have had to bear the burden of the increased taxation that the government has levied on them since it came into power? During that period of time there has been little appreciable increase in the income of the average and below average income employable person in this country. One need only look at what the government have done and the attitude of mind they have displayed to realize the direction in which they are heading and where their sympathies lie.
I think of the old age pensioners who received an increase of $10 per month, but which was not made retroactive as were the increases of $8,000 to members of parliament. I think of the other increases in salaries granted to hundreds of people in the upper levels of the civil service.


Mr. Winkler:: The president of the C.B.C.


Edward Nasserden: They received increases of $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 and the president of the C.B.C. received a salary increase beyond the imagination of most people in this country. But those in the lower income groups were lost sight of by the government opposite and by the Prime Minister who it was said during the election campaign was a man who cared. What does he care about? That is the question we have to ask ourselves on this occasion.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: He cared about you.


Edward Nasserden: He cared about me but he did not care about the thousands of little people in this country.


Mr. Cashin:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edward Nasserden: As soon as I am finished I will be very glad to do so. There is another reason why we should question the advisability of providing interim supply to the government opposite. I refer to the carelessness with which they have arranged the business of the House of Commons. The order paper is in their hands. They have the responsibility and the opportunity as well to place before the House of Commons a bill of fare that in an orderly way will provide the maximum benefit for the Canadian people. That has not been the case during the 16 months the government has been in office.
One need only think of the pension plan, the revisions in that plan and the questions that are still being asked to realize that this is a government that did not know what it wanted to do, did not know how to do it and in the final analysis wasted the time of parliament by the reconsideration of ill-prepared, ill-conceived measures that did not receive

the attention of the ministers concerned which is expected from responsible ministers of the crown.
One need only think of the flag resolution, and I will say no more than that, to realize that the government has brought forward the kind of faltering policy that has endangered the reputation of parliament itself. We should not forget the first budget introduced by the Minister of Finance and the threatening aspects of that budget not only with regard to the domestic scene but in international circles as well.


John James Greene: Things look pretty good now though.


Edward Nasserden: Things look pretty good now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You had better talk to your farmers, Joe.


Edward Nasserden: That has always been the great boast of the Liberal party, but in no sphere of activity has their failure been greater than in the sphere of national unity. One need only look at Canada today to realize how shallow, how utterly deceitful, have been the claims that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite when they have spoken about the unity of our nation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. gentleman can make a speech later if he wants to but he knows, as all members across the way know, that national unity is questioned today as it never was before, and all because we have in power a government that has failed in its responsibilities to all Canadians, but more so with regard to the province of Quebec because it has made greater promises to the people of that province than to those of any other province. I think of the damage the government has done to the theme of a strong central government, a government that can fill the expectations embodied in the articles of confederation and also give people in all parts of this nation that stature, that opportunity, that the Fathers of Confederation had in mind when they laid the foundations for the building of a united nation made up of French, English and those of other races all in one big happy family.
These are the reasons why we have to question the government on the courses upon which it has set out. There is before the Canadian people today one aspect of governmental activity that has brought all of these 20220-598
Interim Supply
questions into even greater focus. I refer to the role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If we go back and look at its origin and purpose we will see that at the time it was brought into being there were high hopes that this instrument would be one of the great unifying factors in the development of this nation. I am sure it is true that members in all parts of the house thought that in the development of Canada over the years the C.B.C. would be able to search out talent that would enhance the cultural genius of our nation. But what has been the effect of the policies deliberately embarked upon by the management of the C.B.C. over the last decade or two?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Lincoln Rockwell.


Edward Nasserden: What manner of search have they made for talent here in Canada? Look at what they have done to challenge the very institutions that Canadians in all parts of this nation hold dear by holding up to ridicule and questioning the moral and religious foundations of our nation. I cannot help but wonder what they have been trying to inspire because certainly it has not been the unity of Canada. Certainly there has been no effort on the part of the C.B.C. to try to inspire and encourage a philosophy that would enhance Canadian citizenship in the eyes of the people of the world as well as in the eyes of the people of Canada and their children.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I should like to suggest to hon. members who wish to carry on conversations in the chamber that they should do so in a soft voice so that the chairman will have an opportunity to hear the speeches that are being made.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the hon. member for Longueuil who has been chattering like a chipmunk all through my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you were not referring to me when you were saying somebody was speaking out of turn.


An hon. Member:: If the shoe fits, buddy, wear it.


John James Greene: A chipmunk knows a nut when he sees one.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I may have been laughing sometimes, because he says some funny things.

Interim Supply


Edward Nasserden: If it is funny for a member of this house to question the direction the C.B.C. is taking today in connection with the cultural aspirations of our people, the way in which it has challenged everything in which the people of Canada believe-and this is just as true in your constituency as it is in mine-then I believe more consideration should be given to these matters than you have been giving to them up to date.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Could I ask a question?


Edward Nasserden: As soon as I have completed my remarks. I believe that because of the reluctance of the minister responsible for the C.B.C. to engage in any type of consideration of what is going on in the C.B.C., there has grown up in that organization almost a contempt for this parliament and for the desires of the Canadian people. I do not say this by way of criticism of the present minister only, nor by way of criticism of the former minister who now sits in the opposition, but I say it by way of criticism of those who have held up the C.B.C. as one of the holy cows that could not be questioned concerning the direction in which it was trying to develop Canadian thought and Canadian culture. I believe, from the observations I have heard in every part of Canada, and from letters I have received as well from people who are the backbone of this country today, that the Canadian people are fearful of the consequences if this organization is allowed to continue without some kind of direction from parliament.
This does not mean that we want to interfere with individual programs, but it does mean that there must be some philosophy behind a crown corporation charged with the great responsibility that was given to the C.B.C. when it was originally formed. If I may say so, sir, it has been left without direction of any kind from parliament itself. We are to blame in this parliament and in the parliaments that went before us for what is taking place in this organization. I believe that the time is long past when parliament itself should give some expression to what parliament hoped this cultural organization, if you wish to call it that, could do for the unity of our nation, for the development of our future as a nation amongst the nations of the world.
I do not wish to go into individual programs and will not do so tonight. This is not because I have not seen programs on the C.B.C. that were open to question. It is not because I

have not received letters from people who have been seriously concerned about these matters. I think someone here today referred to the fact this organization has a captive audience. I thought that was very well put because, in many parts of this nation, they have a captive audience. What they did, and what they did not do, in a very large measure could affect the future of this nation. There are many other things that could be said about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There will be other occasions when we can deal with this in greater detail. This is in conformity with the wishes of the President of the Privy Council who indicated the estimates of the C.B.C. will be brought forward very shortly for consideration.


George James McIlraith: Well, I offered to do that.


Edward Nasserden: The minister says he
offered to do it. This is the kind of hedging we have had on so many occasions from ministers. First of all, they like to hold something over your head as a club, and that is exactly what the minister tried to do today. However, he did it in such a nice way that none of us could take exception to it. He is very adept at that, I have to admit. However, this does not subtract from the fact that he tried to hold this club over our heads and say, if you boys pass these things quickly without examination, we will bring forward the C.B.C. estimates.
The fact is, sir, that there are other matters that engage our attention as well as the C.B.C. There are danger signs in our Canadian economy today. Some hon. members opposite may feel I am talking through my hat when I talk in this fashion, especially if one looks at some of the figures. But when you analyse those figures you realize that some of these things have happened because of the iax policies that have been evolved by this government. You cannot help but realize there are serious implications in what is happening throughout Canada today.
I want to return to what I said before concerning the increased use of consumer credit in this country. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the present situation. It is a situation to which not only the President of the Privy Council but the Minister of Finance and other members of cabinet should be giving much more serious consideration than they are at the moment. During the past year Canada has enjoyed the fruits and benefits of the sale of grain made to the U.S.S.R. This was a great shot in the arm to our economy. Today we had an announcement

from the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the sale of 10.6 million bushels of grain to the U.S.S.R. This, in itself, will not be much of a shot in the arm to the economy this year. We had hoped the sale to the U.S.S.R. would have been much larger. In fact, there is reason to believe they will require more than 10.6 million bushels in the year ahead.
I ask myself again, why should we vote this government $740 million? Why should we give them permission to carry on for another two months? We have heard very little from the benches opposite today or Friday to indicate there is anything in the complexion of the situation that faces us today that could inspire confidence in the government amongst the Canadian people. We recall the action that was taken a few years ago to devaluate the Canadian dollar. We recall the words that were spoken. We recall those green pieces of paper that were sent from one end of the country to the other questioning that action.
No one on the government benches can claim much credit for what has happened to the Canadian economy because almost everything has been as a result of the devaluation of the dollar at that time, and of the trade promotion program begun by the former administration, which had an eye to the future of Canadian industry and labour. All we have had since then is a hit or miss program aimed at certain localities, almost bypassing the national scene and leaving outside parliament's consideration that sense of equity that must exist between one area and another in developing a national program for our people.
Once again I come to the question, why should the government be voted $740 million, why should it be given another two months in office in order to carry on the tactics it has employed during the last several months? The government has been slow to take action on hate literature. Perhaps one of the reasons for its slowness is that if it passes legislation outlawing hate literature it would make all its own campaign literature obsolete. That is a valid statement to make when one recalls what took place during the last general election, and despite the hon. member opposite, who is not in his seat-


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


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I ask the hon. member a question.
Interim Supply


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, my principal purpose is to speak for a few minutes on the subject of the C.B.C. Quite a number of speakers have dealt with it at some length today. They took up a considerable part of parliament's time to talk about it and I think I am justified in using a little of its time to speak on the same subject.
First, may I say we are always interested in hearing the monthly state of the union address by the hon. member for Rosthern, who tonight indicates that he sees danger signs to the Canadian economy. If we are to judge from recent newspaper reports probably the danger signs he sees are that the budget may be balanced this year after seven years of monumental deficits. In his state of the union address he omitted that, and failed to mention anything about the reestablishment of fiscal responsibility, about the buoyant economy, or about the reduction in unemployment.
However, referring to the C.B.C. the hon. member had a good idea when he said it was useful to review the early days of the corporation and its early purposes. Its principal purpose was that of uniting the nation and developing cultural interest in the country. I am in full accord with those principles. As I have said previously in this chamber, if it had not been for the existence of the C.B.C. in the early days of radio, and in the early days of television, it is doubtful whether Canadian culture could have been salvaged. Had it not been for the C.B.C. our culture could well have been submerged in American culture because of the great influx of U.S. television programs.
In passing, I wonder how many singers and artists have been discovered and encouraged over the years by the C.B.C. I wonder how many people across Canada have had their knowledge of public affairs broadened by the C.B.C. I wonder whether any broadcasting network in the world has kept a higher standard in news broadcasts than the C.B.C. No organization has done more to provide entertainment in the medium of sports coverage. But I do not wish to review only past accomplishments.
The C.B.C. has been frequently mentioned in this chamber in recent days and it would be well for us to remember how and why the corporation was established. The reason it was not made a department of government, that it was not made directly

Interim Supply
responsible to parliament is tied in with the fact that in a country so large and thinly populated it would be difficult initially for private radio and television to produce the type of programs that all Canadians might well expect to see, and to do this at a financial profit. As a consequence there was a necessity for government ownership, and the objective was to have government ownership without government or parliamentary interference. Thus the C.B.C. was set up with a president and a board of 11 directors appointed from all across the country.
In 1958 the Broadcasting Act, repealing the Canadian broadcasting act, provided for the establishment of a board of broadcast governors, whose purpose was the provision "of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard. . . ." and which had the power to make regulations "respecting standards of programs." Regardless of what the B.B.G. has or has not done with this power, it must be remembered that the previous government gave the B.B.G. the power to make regulations regarding standards of programs, and it was the previous government which appointed the first members of the B.B.G.
Over the years frequent attempts have been made to interfere with the independence of the C.B.C., and in dealing with them the proper view has been that which was expressed so well by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in 1962, when he held the cabinet portfolio which embraced the C.B.C. As recorded at page 857 of Hansard for February 14, 1962 he said:
-it has been the policy of this government from the beginning, as it was the policy of the previous government and as I hope it will always be the policy of federal governments, not to interfere
with the programming of the C.B.C_ If we were
to start interfering with the programming of the C.B.C. we would be laying the foundation for either a fascist state or a communist state.
I am sure we all agree with the stand which he took on that occasion, but I hasten to say that I disagree with some of the things that are done by the C.B.C., and in particular I refer to certain programs that may be held to be in bad taste. I shall not again take the opportunity to criticize the C.B.C. in this chamber because I do not think this is the proper place to do it, but since we are on the subject I think we should be most concerned about the showing of a film that is highly controversial in the United States just prior to the eve of the presidential elections. I am sure there would be great

yelling and screaming on this side of the border if the Americans were to use their television facilities which come into this country, as ours go into parts of the United States, to put on controversial political material on the eve of a Canadian election.


Eric Alfred Winkler: They did last time.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Despite the fact that sometimes we all disagree with the policies of the C.B.C. we are in such a situation that were we to interfere with the policies of that corporation we could destroy its independence. Every few years it is useful for a parliamentary committee to review the progress of the industry. At the present time an advisory committee is at work under Mr. Fowler, a committee made up of experts, looking into the development of the industry as a whole. Its report will be ready in the spring and would make an appropriate subject for consideration by a parliamentary committee. We would then have the opportunity to consider the report of this departmental committee and express the views of Canadians as their elected representatives. I think the meeting of a parliamentary committee now would be premature and without direction. I believe it would be used by many of the members of this house to indulge in program reviews, as they do periodically, reviews upon which they waste the time of the people here in the House of Commons. When this report comes before a parliamentary committee-and we have been told that such a committee will be set up next year-I believe it would be a good idea to have the officials come before us, in order that the general trend might be considered. But to hold meetings now would merely provide a platform for those in this house who want parliament to run the C.B.C. on a day by day basis. I would point out, also, that not only is it very late in the session but that we have a very heavy backload of business to attend to without taking on this extra responsibility now.
I wonder, however, whether the members who have spoken on this subject are really concerned at all about the general policies of the C.B.C. I think it more likely they are merely trying to establish a forum for their program reviews. Let us consider some of the things which have been said today. The hon. member for Edmonton West was very careful, when he spoke, to tell the committee he did not want to carry on a witch hunt or interfere with the independence of the corporation. But he did want to know, he said,

why certain individuals seemed to enjoy a predominance on certain programs. He wanted to know why these people were invited to appear. Was this not just the type of situation which parliament was concerned about when it first set up the C.B.C. as an independent corporation? The hon. member for Lethbridge also spoke. He said he was concerned about the number of reporters-he used that word first and then changed it to "personnel"-who were used to cover the Queen's visit, and placed the number at 400. He thought that was a terrible thing; but he did not tell us how many were used by other networks to cover the same occasion. He did not tell us how many were used by the B.B.C. or by N.B.C. in the United States. He did not tell us what all these 400 people did. He did not tell us because he has no idea in the world what they did.


An hon. Member:: Do you?


Gerald Augustine Regan: This is the type of criticism we get so often, despite the fact that the legislation says the C.B.C. shall be independent and not run by parliament.
What was the criticism made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, an hon. member for whom I have the greatest respect? He told us he felt a committee should be set up because he was disturbed about the distribution of political time; he was disturbed by the lack of objective reporting. Apparently he does not hear much about Social Credit. I would have a different viewpoint and, I am sure, so would many other members of this committee. It seems to me Social Credit does get a great deal of publicity. I hear statements very often by members of the Social Credit party; and these are given publicity. As I say, these things are all a matter of viewpoint.
I want to say that the objections to setting up a parliamentary committee in an attempt to run the C.B.C. are threefold. First, it would be contrary to the principle of independence of which I have spoken. In the second place, we would be using parliamentary time-as we are doing at the moment, I know-to discuss the internal direction of a crown corporation; we would be dealing, for instance, with the question of how many reporters were used to cover the Queen's visit. The third objection is, of course, the lack of expert knowledge by members of this house of the broadcasting art. Very few of us have worked in broadcasting and some who have done so are far from being experts. I realize we may have one or two experts present-
Interim Supply


An hon. Member:: Are you?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Keep going; never stop.


Gerald Augustine Regan: One interesting question which occurs to me is this: Why has there been so little criticism of the private broadcasters? Is commercial television so much better? Are all the private broadcasters in Canada perfect in their programming?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We do not pay for that.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member for Oxford says "We do not pay for it". So, despite the fact that broadcasting comes under the board of broadcast governors, a board set up by parliament to supervise the standards of broadcasting generally, the hon. member for Oxford says: We don't pay for private broadcasting, but since we provide the money for government radio it should be run on a day to day basis by the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He did not say that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Halifax is very astute with his language, but I never said any such thing, and he knows it.


An hon. Member:: May I be permitted to ask a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would prefer that it should be asked at the end of my remarks, if that is agreeable. I will leave time.
We have dealt with this question of why there has been no criticism of private broadcasters. We are told this is because we do not pay for private broadcasting. But I would point out that all private channels in this country are controlled by the Broadcasting Act, which provides that we should be equally concerned with what goes on in any private station across Canada. No one should profess to be concerned only with what the C.B.C. does just because we happen to be paying for it. I disagree fundamentally and entirely with that principle.
We heard some words from the Leader of the Opposition on this subject, as we do from time to time. He has on a number of occasions objected to programs which the television network has carried, and he mentioned one today. I can only wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition was as concerned with the standards and programming of the C.B.C. when the directors of the corporation were chosen. I wonder whether he showed his present concern when the board of broadcast governors was set up. In my opinion there has been a trend in some of the C.B.C. programming which has caused a number of

Interim Supply
us to be somewhat concerned, though not to the extent that we are prepared to interfere with the independence of the C.B.C. But if there is any question about the deterioration of C.B.C. standards, if the programming is not as good as it was two or three years ago, if it is more offensive to some people; if the corporation has producers who are giving them ideas which are "way out," it is not the responsibility of individual members of this parliament, because they know they should not interfere with the internal operations of the C.B.C. There is only one man in this House of Commons who is in a position to take responsibility, if the standard of services has deteriorated in the past three or four years. Who appointed the directors?


Some hon. Members:: Who?


Gerald Augustine Regan: As I said earlier in my remarks, the whole principle of setting up the C.B.C. was to have independent directors, to give this organization independence from parliament. Therefore, of course, it was important that the directors be chosen on a basis of representing the different races in the country, the regional interests and the cultural interests; that they be people of good taste and of wisdom. I am not saying they are not, but I am saying it is important that the directors of the C.B.C., if they are going to run this vast organization, be chosen on that basis. It was certainly the responsibility of whoever chose them to see that this was the case. These directors run the C.B.C. the same as do the directors of any other corporation. They have full power-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Maybe they do not use it; I do not know about that. They do not have to, if they do not have the courage. But they, like the directors of any company, decide what the policies of that company will be, or have the power to do so. So I ask, Mr. Chairman, were these directors chosen with consideration for their wisdom, their good taste, and so forth? All but two of the present directors were appointed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition during the days of his government. If the C.B.C. is falling down in good taste; if it is presenting bad programs, it is only the responsibility of the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You are away off.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I see. The only other thing is this. The government of the right hon. gentle-

man in 1958 also set up the B.B.G. with the terms of reference that I mentioned a little earlier. He set them up and gave them the power to make regulations with regard to programming. If hon. members opposite have become concerned about the standard and the type of programs that are being shown to the Canadian public, I presume those men on the B.B.G. were also selected by the right hon. gentleman with great care for their wisdom, good taste and national interest. One can only assume that if the B.B.G. has been concerned only with the Canadian content of broadcasting and has not spent enough time on the effective supervision of broadcasting in this country, there is only one man who is directly responsible, and that is the person who appointed them. He is the only man in this house who had any opportunity to do any of these things.
I do not believe anyone will really argue with the principle that if you have directors who do their job, if you have a B.B.G. that does its job, the C.B.C. is bound not to overstep the limits. I am not dealing with the question of whether they have or have not; I am just pointing out that if you condemn the C.B.C. and come to the conclusion that their programs have been in very poor taste, that is where the responsibility has to lie.


Gilles Grégoire: That is quite a joke.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -I want to say that, while the right hon. Leader of the Opposition bears that responsibility, at the same time his supporters in this house have used the time of parliament all day today to carry on this program review of the C.B.C. and bring it up again and again, while the people of Canada wait for legislation on minimum wages, on pensions, on railways, on unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: When I conclude.


Some hon. Members:: You are afraid.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Never. I want to say this: Next year, when the report comes in from the advisory committee, that will be an appropriate time for a parliamentary review, for a committee to review the general course of the industry and where it is headed. When direc-

tors come up for reappointment is the time to consider whether or not they have done a good job as directors, I would suggest; and I will be interested to hear the remarks of the hon. members on that side of the house at that time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You will get them.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I tell you that Canadians are tired of this house being used as the forum day after day for small matters like this. The people of Canada want to see us get on with the job of running this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I say, Mr. Chairman, let us consider the nation's business; let us get on with it, and let us not gossip about t.v. programs.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will now permit a question, I wonder whether he really feels that $100 million of the taxpayers' money is sufficiently unimportant that we should not spend a couple of days debating this matter, or as much time as it takes to satisfy members of this house. That is my first question. Also, does this debate make any difference to bringing forth the labour bill either last Friday or today? I would ask the hon. member that question. It makes absolutely no difference.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the hon. gentleman that the time to deal with the question of the C.B.C. is on the estimates of the C.B.C.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You want to sweep $100 million under the door.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is the first answer. I would say, further, that even at that time, if we are to save the independence of the C.B.C. we should not be dealing with its programming: we should be dealing with the general development of C.B.C. policies in broadcasting in this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I listened very carefully to his remarks-


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am glad.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -and I think he advanced a very substantial argument, provided that one premise, the premise upon which his whole argument was based, is in fact a valid one. This premise, it seems to me, was that someone in this house is asking that the parliamentary committee in fact administer the day to day affairs of the C.B.C. First of all I would like to ask the hon. member, who has
Interim Supply
asked that this committee shall be in charge of administering the day to day affairs of the C.B.C.?


Eric Alfred Winkler: He hasn't been here long enough.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If that premise is not present, his whole argument breaks down.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to assure my hon. friend that my whole argument does not break down, because the hon. member for Medicine Hat himself was suggesting that we need to deal with the C.B.C. with regard to the question of the objectivity of their news broadcasting among the political parties, and the question of the distribution of free time to air political views. He thus indicated that he wants to go into the internal management of the C.B.C. and wants to break down their independence. I also suggest that the general tenor of all the criticism of the C.B.C., not only today but at other times when the question of the corporation has come before the house, suggests interference in minor internal management, such as how many employees are necessary to cover the Queen's visit.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: This is the one I am afraid of.


John James Greene: I was very interested in the hon. member's premise that the C.B.C. is the guardian and custodian of Canadian culture, and I wondered whether he could tell me in what guise such programs as Jack Benny, Danny Kaye, Ed Sullivan, and that great exponent of Canadiana, sheriff Matt Dillon, have added to Canadian culture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to cast any aspersions upon Matt Dillon. But at the same time I say this, that if it had not been for the C.B.C. all television in Canada would have been Matt Dillons; it would have been all-American-because Canada was not in a position to develop a privately owned television network.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my hon. friend from Halifax in talking about the C.B.C., even though he said before he spoke for 25 minutes on the subject that we should not be taking up any time at all on it. I want to open my remarks by mentioning a conflict he has resolved for me, in that he said the appointments to the C.B.C. board of directors were made by the

Interim Supply
previous prime minister and that the right hon. gentleman must take full responsibility for what has happened because he made the appointments. This has resolved a conflict in my mind. Ever since Judge Meunier of Quebec was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary, and he was appointed by the Prime Minister, it has bothered me that there might be a connection here. It has bothered me that there might have been a connection in another regard, and that the Prime Minister might have had some responsibility. Furthermore, that other fine appointment of Mr. Landreville to the high court of Ontario was made by the present Prime Minister, and he was being tried as having taken part in an improper stock transaction. That has bothered me. However, I am now reassured by the hon. member for Halifax that these appointments of that calibre of men are a direct reflection of the attitude and convictions of the man who made the appointment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because I represent an area of this country where life is not only basic but at times quite brutal. Most of us there do not have much time for indulgence in righteous indignation. I feel I have a certain amount of perspective for another reason.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you would ask hon. members opposite to be a little more orderly.
I feel I may have a certain amount of perspective for another reason. Most of my constituents do not have access to even radio programs, and none of them receive television services. The words of condemnation that I intend to utter in respect of the C.B.C. and their programming-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether you would ask those heroes opposite to stand and make speeches, if that is what they are attempting to do.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I have made these opening remarks because-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Surely no one can accuse me of attempting to give expression to a voter reaction within my constituency, since my constituents in fact are unable to receive television.
I am concerned about what has been described in today's Toronto Globe and Mail
tMr. Rheaume.}
by a declaration known as the Declaration of Canadian women, in reference to propaganda spread for perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, dope, violence and crime. I feel that it should be a source of concern to those of us in this house when we are being asked to vote millions of dollars to underwrite this kind of operation.
I do not hesitate to speak, nor do I apologize to anyone in this house for standing in my place saying those things I believe to be accurate about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and whether in my opinion it is doing a good or bad job. I am not afraid of any kind of retaliation. Everyone suggests that if you comment about the expenditures of a crown corporation you are engaging in a witch hunt. If by registering objections to pornography and perversion I am witch hunting, I say then, let us get on with this witch hunt. Furthermore if a witch hunt has been conducted anywhere in Canada it has been conducted on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programming for the last few years.
There are those who believe that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has for some time been the darling of the Liberal party, and that it is dedicated not only to the spreading of pornography and perversion, but also Liberalism. The Canadian taxpayer has the right to have someone stand up in this house and ask questions. This question was raised once before. Was the doubling of the salary of the president of the C.B.C. from $20,000 to $40,000 per year anything more than an attempt on the part of the then secretary of state to ensure that the C.B.C. and its senior executives would be dedicated to the task of keeping the Liberal party in power in this country? It would not be the first time the Liberals bought the people of this country with their own money. One has only to think of the $500 bonus given toward the construction of a house, and the additional cost of $800, or more, because of the 11 per cent sales tax.
Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in my comments about the C.B.C. I could read from a current statement which appears in this declaration of Canadian women printed in the Toronto Globe and Mail today in a column written by Dennis Braithwaite. I do not intend to read this entire article but I should like to read one paragraph as follows:
In Its general preamble, attached to a petition form, declaration states that both radio and t.v. are being exploited to maintain a constant assault on character, to undermine faith in God and

respect for law and authority and to destroy sound home life and the knowledge of right and wrong. Noting that the C.B.C. last year spent $86,000,000 of public money, the document calls on members of parliament to make the corporation "answerable to the Canadian people."
I take no objection, Mr. Chairman, to any of these goals of the people who signed this declaration.
The article then continues as follows:
Lest anyone think this a demand for censorship the declaration insists that the present freedom of the C.B.C. is a form of censorship. "Those who kill the conscience of a nation dig the grave of freedom and prepare the ground for dictatorship. It begins when God-given standards are mocked and their proponents are belittled, bullied oi silenced altogether.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on the record statements which appear in an article in a Roman Catholic newspaper which probably has the greatest circulation of any Catholic publication on this continent. The article appeared in the July 30 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, and appeared under the byline of Patricia Young. Patricia Young makes the general point that the C.B.C. has conducted a constant assault on character, patriotism and our accepted moral standards. To support her arguments she reviews a list of the programs that we saw last year on C.B.C. television. I should like to just sketch her remarks in this regard. First there was the program called "Two Soldiers" which was a drama in the "Quest" series depicting two servicemen returning from the army. Not only were they devoid of patriotism, but they mouthed the typical ban the bomb line and had become homosexually involved because of their army service.
The second program to which she referred was "A Second Look", which appeared on February 9 and featured Ralph Ginsburg of New York, publisher of Eros and other pornography magazines. He was allowed to defend his case on this program, using this corporation of ours, despite the fact that he had just been convicted on 28 counts, sentenced to five years in jail and fined $28,900 for peddling this filth.
The third program was "The Observer" which was produced in Toronto and appeared on February 13. Dr. Albert Ellis offered his view that premarital and extramarital sexual relations were not only normal but necessary, and the best thing for family life.
On May 13, the "Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner" appeared on the "Festival" series. This program gave a distorted conception of religion by showing a pious religious fanatic turn into a man
Interim Supply
who indulged in violence, rape, perversion, drunkenness and murder.
I could go down the list, Mr. Chairman, which includes a resume of "The Open Grave", "The Trespassers", and the "Quest" series which blatantly showed a retarded man being seduced by his social worker, and which wound up by revealing that all of the previous social workers had done the same thing to him.
There are people, Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Halifax, who believe that members of parliament have no right to take objection to these things, and that to do so would be putting the brakes on the C.B.C. and its programmers. I say it is time that members of parliament put the brakes on this type of nonsense, which is being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. I believe that this kind of independence has turned into arrogance and that there are times when the C.B.C. directors are even turning on their own benefactors in the Liberal party.
I was forced to come to this conclusion on the basis of events prior to the recent visit of Her Majesty the Queen. For the six weeks immediately prior to Her Majesty's visit to Quebec not a single member of the treasury benches made use of the public affairs facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to explain to the people of Quebec the meaning of the visit. I think of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that cabinet minister from the province of Quebec, that fearless fighter for the rights of the Indian people even though he does nothing to bring in legislation for them. Where was he during all this time? Why did he not take to the C.B.C.?


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that this opportunity is given to me to make some comments on what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has already stated, as repeated tonight by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), to the effect that I and other French Canadian ministers were not in Quebec city during the visit of Her Majesty the Queen.
I wish to point out to the hon. member that I was very happy, as a minister of the crown, and together with several other ministers of the crown from the province of Quebec, to accompany Her Majesty to numerous receptions in the city of Quebec and also on board the plane which carried her to Ottawa. That was the way for us, French Canadians, to

Interim Supply
prove our true solidarity toward the Queen of Canada.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, and also his colleague for the Yukon, to cease repeating those false insinuations which are intended to divide Canadians, for political purposes upon which the people will pass judgment at the right time.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to get into an argument with the minister. I said, where were the statements by these ministers from Quebec over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prior to the Queen's visit? Where were they then? At any rate, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will hear me out I think he will find I am saying precisely what he was saying. But let me go on to the Minister of Justice, because he too said nothing.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Where was the Minister without Portfolio? He is no longer selling bumper stickers so he must have had plenty of time to prepare a broadcast for Quebec over the C.B.C. facilities. Where were these voices? Where was the minister of culture who is responsible for this crown corporation? Why was he not making use of the C.B.C.'s educational facilities months in advance of the Queen's visit? Where was the Minister of Public Works? I cannot believe that these men were cowards. I cannot believe that these men were just lying in the weeds to see how the visit came out before they said anything, just waiting around to see whether or not separatism might be a good thing to espouse. I have to believe that as bold men they wanted to make the people of Quebec anticipate and welcome the visit of the Queen and that somehow or other they were refused the opportunity to do so. I intend to raise these questions again when the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation come before the house. I want to find out whether these cabinet ministers went to the C.B.C. and attempted to make use of the educational facilities of that corporation in an effort to prepare the people of Quebec to welcome Her Majesty. I know it can be done.


Mr. Mackasey:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You can wait until I am finished.


Mr. Laniel:: What did you do as a French Canadian?
[Mr. Tremblay.!


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: What did you do as
a French Canadian?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I know it can be done because I was in Ottawa the night the Minister of Transport suborned the C.B.C. into allowing him to make a statement on civil aviation policy when, because of sloppiness, he had been denied the opportunity to do so in the house.
I want to speak a moment about programming. Last night I saw the program "This Hour Has Seven Days". I have a right to say what I think about it and I intend to do so. I am not ashamed of giving my opinion. Too many members of parliament look at crown corporations and expenditures on them and say: Our role is to say nothing; we must not say anything because we will take their freedom away from them.
I saw the program last night and I say it was in the worst traditions of third rate college high jinks. What was not in that spirit and taste was an outright and open attempt to whitewash certain people in the United States, particularly Walter Jenkins, the presidential aide. I was disgusted with the freedom that the C.B.C. gave the producers of the program to equate perversion of a homosexual nature with overzealousness in the public service. This is something I cannot accept. I was not amused, enlightened or even entertained by Mr. Rockwell, and the press reports of the reactions of great many Canadian people indicate that I am not alone in that view.
The sad part of all this in my opinion is that there is ample scope for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with regard to whatever activities it wants to pursue, in keeping with its original mandate. Its mandate is by no means fulfilled and there is ample evidence that the corporation could come to parliament and secure appropriations of $80 million, $90 million or $100 million a year if it would carry out a positive program such as has yet to be enunciated. In other words, let the corporation get away from this nonsense of portraying perversion as though there were some kind of adolescent kick to it, and let it carry out the very necessary work that needs to be done.
I have some suggestions for the corporation. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian people who are still without television service. There are thousands of Canadians who are not able to receive good radio broadcasts. I am thinking of the people who live in the northerly areas where the only station they can listen to is radio Moscow.

It is the only station that comes in consistently and it has good, impartial coverage of Canadian news.
These northerly areas are the areas of .greatest isolation and insulation and if there is anywhere in Canada where the educational and cultural possibilities of radio and television are desperately needed it is in these northern areas where the people are remote from the mainsprings of Canadian life. However, every time I ask the C.B.C. to look into these things I get the answer that the cost of extending these services would be too great.
This afternoon I made a telephone call to a C.B.C. officer to find out about their new building program. I learned that they are expecting to build two new office buildings in Toronto and Montreal. The one in Toronto will cost $45 million, the one in Montreal will cost $60 million and together with a few smaller ones there will be a total expenditure of approximately $108 million. This is so that those who now plan C.B.C. programs can do so in more comfort. I am not so sure that producers of pornography should be allowed to hatch their perversions in air conditioned comfort at a time when hundreds of thousands of Canadians have yet to receive any kind of basic service. What else might the C.B.C. do instead of pursuing this bent they have today? I believe, and I believe this sincerely, that the programming of this agency, now that we are in 1964, requires a careful review. I do not believe that it would be necessary to limit this program review to parliament, although I would have no objection to parliamentarians being on such a committee. I believe a re-examination of this corporation is needed, and is needed now. I do not believe that a member of parliament getting up to register an objection to filth is destroying the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If in fact this kind of filth is being perpetrated on the Canadian people, then I want to know who else in this country is going to stand up and oppose this sort of thing if members of parliament, individually and collectively, do not do it?
I receive all sorts of requests in relation to the northern service from people who have comments on northern programming. They quite often do not deal directly through me, but directly with C.B.C. officials. I want to give you an example of their requests because this may come at a good time, right after Mr. Rockwell, the leader of the nazi movement in the United States, has been given hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free publicity. This is a letter from the Rev-
Interim Supply
erend Frith who lives at Inuvik in the Northwest Territories where the Mackenzie river empties into the Arctic ocean. The Reverend Frith and his parishioners have been after the C.B.C. to allow the Sunday program of Dr. Billy Graham to be broadcast to the thousands of people who live in that remote area. This is what he was told when he contacted the officials:
One official told me that C.B.C. was giving to the people of Inuvik and area what they felt was in the best interest of the people. We appreciate what the C.B.C. has been offering but feel with the abundance of time given to popular music and "soap*' operas something could be cut somewhere to enable the people to hear the messages of one of the most outstanding evangelists of our day.
I do not want to read this whole letter and I doubt that it is necessary. However, I wanted to put it on the record at this time to positively suggest to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they read the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern about the origins of the corporation and find out, if they can, what their purpose was when that body was set up by this parliament. I do not believe this is an unreasonable plea. I think it is long overdue. I would hope that the C.B.C. would be unafraid to come to this parliament and ask for $80 million if it meant extending services to all Canadians everywhere. I am sure this parliament would be quite happy to grant such a request rather than going on with the unending requests for money to finance programs like "This Hour Has Seven Days". I am not so sure their mandate was to make themselves comfortable in Toronto and Montreal in $108 million worth of air conditioned buildings, at a time when they had not fulfilled their mandate in substantial portions of this country.
Just last week, Mr. Chairman, the minister of northern affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in Edmonton about the Canadian northland, said that communications and services were the key to opening this vast area; that the government is planning on doing this and they are looking for all these wonderful things. Well, here is something that the C.B.C. can do; it can rearrange this $108 million and put off air conditioning for another year. Let us see if they cannot suffer through the heat of Toronto and Montreal for just one more summer, so that the people who live all over the country will at least have access to these things. I suggest to them that it would be worth their while to do this.

Interim Supply
In closing, I suggest to them that a great many other Canadians think the same way. I want to close by reading a sentence from an article I referred to earlier in the most widely circulated Roman Catholic magazine by Patricia Young. She says:
Needless to say, Canada's taxpayers (and voters) will be carefully watching and listening. Many have already gone on record as saying: "O.K., you've gone far enough".


John James Greene: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Certainly.


John James Greene: Can the hon. member inform us, if the C.B.C. programs are so terrible, so stultifying, to the people who hear them, why is he so anxious to spread the service to his constituents?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: This is the sort of Liberal sophistry I have no difficulty in answering. I suggested a two point program. I suggested, (a) eliminating the filth and garbage and, (b) those energies that are now being directed to perversion should be devoted to bringing good Canadian broadcasting to the people of this country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope the committee will forgive me for changing the topic. I would love to join in the discussion of the C.B.C., but the points I would like to bring up are really out of context with the debate that has taken place. It seems to me the questions about the C.B.C. that are most pressing are its relationship to commercial policy and its whole relationship to the board of broadcast governors. I am very much bothered by the lame duck status of the present chairman of the board of broadcast governors in relation to broadcasting policy. It seems to me that this type of approach and query that could be handled by a broadcasting committee would be more important in setting broadcasting and radio direction than in considering the perversions and pornography raised by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. He will forgive me if I say to the house and to him that I really believe in assessing what he said he, himself, would have to acknowledge, that he was drawing a little bit of a long bow. I do not see how any of us, no matter what our contact with the C.B.C. may be, can fail to admit-I have had the kind of letters of complaint that have been mentioned-that the C.B.C. does not continually put out perversion and pornography upon the air waves via either television or radio. I do not believe it does those of us who are really 
critical of the C.B.C. any good to exaggerate in that particular direction.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to speak to was the debate we had on Friday afternoon in connection with a situation on Canadian National Railways known as the run-through problem. Today the Prime Minister made an announcement that he was acceding to the request of the president of Canadian National Railways to set up a commission of inquiry. It would be under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, section 55, subsection (3). The commissioner would have terms of reference that would enable him to examine the situation in connection with run-throughs, arising particularly out of the situation at Wainwright and Nakina. Everyone may have assumed that once the Prime Minister made this announcement, everything would be over. The fact of the matter is that at this stage of the evening the railroad workers, in the main, have still not reported for work across much of Canada. I wanted to bring out some of the reasons for their hesitation, and why some of them are bitter about the situation. This was a spontaneous outburst that developed on Sunday without any triggering, I can assure you, by any third party as the president of Canadian National seems to allege in his telegram to the Prime Minister. Those who developed this spontaneous outburst are somewhat bitter over the fact the government and the Canadian National have not made a couple of points sufficiently clear.
The first point is the whole question about discipline and the kind of disciplinary action that may be taken by the management against the men. The reason there is bitterness is that last night, just at the most inopportune time in view of what happened today, across the system the railway forced letters upon employees informing them that if they were not back to work at midnight they would be out of service, and maybe on a permanent basis.
This kind of threat, coming as it did on the eve of what was imagined by the government to be a settlement, has left a bitterness that requires a very clear statement from the government that it has had an assurance from the C.N.R. that there will be no retaliation. I have received wires and phone calls from Kamloops, Edmonton, Melville, and places all over the country stressing this particular point.
I know the area vice presidents of the C.N.R., among them Mr. Gander in Toronto, have sent out wires to all terminal points

stating that the men can have this assurance, but one of the most telling commentaries on the bitterness in C.N.R. labour relations over the last few years is the fact that the men are doubtful of this word. Therefore one of the things that has to follow on this particular tie-up is a recognition by the Minister of Labour and the C.N.R. of the fact that the trust and kind of mutual regard that should exist in good Canadian labour relations has largely disappeared between the C.N.R. and its men. I only hope that this particular incident will give impetus to the development of that kind of trust, and will draw some initiative from the government.
I was tempted to review, as did the Leader of the Opposition on motions today, the somewhat sorry performance of the government on this occasion. On Friday the government argued against urgency of debate on the issue, and the minister got up and indicated the government's responsibility was merely to let representations go to the C.N.R. I say to hon. members, don't let what happened in terms of the wire from the president of the C.N.R. and the wire of the Prime Minister, kid you. Somebody on the government side must have made some representations over the week end. I think it shameful that we were denied an urgent debate on the question of urgency, solely because the government and one of its ministers made an argument that there was not any urgency. The reason the minister thought there was no urgency was because he did not understand there was going to be a blow-up on this particular problem.
The second thing that is bothering the men who are out of service across the country at present is the whole question of the scope of the terms of reference that the commissioner of inquiry will have. I want to put on record that I, as someone interested in the case, accept the assurance of the Minister of Labour and of the Minister of Transport that these terms of reference will be broad enough so that the whole problem of run-throughs can be examined and some solutions recommended to it.
What the men have campaigned for on run-throughs is some way of bringing the problem under contract negotiation so that there cannot be unilateral decision, as was the case last Saturday midnight, when the C.N.R. introduced this particular one. I know the Minister of Labour may not be in a position to give this assurance when he has set up this commission of inquiry, but I want to get very clearly on the record that if something like that does not resolve out
Interim Supply
of the situation, then the other kind of solutions had better be wonderful in their completeness, thoroughness and ability to satisfy the men.
The main factor in the development of all this bitterness was the fact that the men were never able to negotiate this major change in their working conditions affecting their homes and families. It has always been at the initiative of management who could say, "Whether you like it or not, no matter what little adjustments we are prepared to make, the change is going to be made."
Even as late as yesterday the management of C.N.R. was trying to insist there would be no kind of agreement of any kind unless the men on the local levels were prepared to accept the recommendation that within two years the home divisional point at Nakina would be abolished.
There is one other point in connection with this matter that should be met. On Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre brought up, as did I, the question of the 1926 Montreal agreement. I have seen copies of this agreement over the week end. It is one of the matters I know will be brought before the commissioner, and I want to put a particular section of it on the record so that the Minister of Labour and the government will realize just how much worth and value there is in it.
In May 1926 the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen and the brotherhood of locomotive engineers entered into an agreement with the C.N.R. This agreement was to last until it was rescinded after 30 days notice on the part of the management, and the point that is particularly important in connection with this document is that it has never been abrogated in any way. The company has never approached the unions with the suggestion that it be thrown out, and I want to point to one of the sections of the agreement which it seems to me is fundamental in a situation where a home terminal is being wiped out. Section 9 says:
Nothing in this agreement shall be taken to permit the company without prior conference with representatives of the employees to change existing home terminal stations of the employees affected thereby-
And it goes on to say that this will not apply when new facilities are created somewhere in the same city or community; but that part is irrelevant. Is there anything more clear so far as home terminals are concerned? This is one of the reasons why the men have felt all along that they have a justifiable

Interim Supply
grievance in the Nakina and Wainwright situation. This agreement and the schedule attached to it has been overlooked and completely ignored by the C.N.R. management.
There is one other point that I think the Minister of Labour should make clear to us. It is something the railroaders have been asking him for some time. They also asked it of his predecessor, the hon. member for Ontario, namely whether there could not be an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that they would have the opportunity of negotiating this kind of situation under that act; in other words, that any time there was a major change in their working conditions this would enable them to negotiate.
At present they do not have this protection under the act. As a matter of fact every time they have tried to enter into negotiations or objected to the changes, the company has always produced the threat contained in that section of the Criminal Code which requires them to honour the obligations they have entered into under their contract. This is the kind of assurance that would be fundamental and I would appreciate it if the Minister of Labour could make some comment on it.
Another point on which he or the Minister of Transport should speak concerns section 182 of the Railway Act which, if it was interpreted the way most of us think it should have been by the courts, or if it had been amended the way a parliamentary committee recommended last session, would give the railroaders and the communities concerned the protection they have been seeking.
The thing that I am proudest of in connection with this whole issue and the way it developed is the fact that the railroaders on the C.N.R. proved they are not mice, that they are not rabbits, as a lot of people thought. They came out in a magnificent display of the kind of solidarity which only comes when men are desperate. What I appreciate most about it was not that they thumbed the nose at the man who heads the C.N.R.- a man for whom I have not a great deal of respect-but what I am most appreciative of is the spirit shown by this little town in my constituency, a town which governments and railway managements tend to forget. These people persisted, though they had the devil of a time making their representations and getting them understood. And when the facts of the situation went down the wire on Saturday night, all I knew and all I could report was that the government would

not take any action and that from this point of view, the situation was dead.
I should like to remind hon. members that these people are living hundreds of miles from any large city and that their means of communication are very scant. It is not like a metropolitan community where it is possible to get legal advice and all kinds of assistance from a host of politicans, agencies and authorities. They are very much out on a limb. But when the moment came, they moved. They made a response and withdrew their services. And up and down the whole system the reply went along; Nakina and Wainwright were supported from Vancouver right through the piece. I appreciate this. I have to express this kind of appreciation because these constituents of mine are now convinced that even though the government did not show a great concern for them, their fellow workers across the whole system did, and I think this brewing up of a spirit of consideration among fellow railwaymen in different parts of the country is the most significant thing which has happened in labour relations and on the railroads for some time. I believe it will be a long time before railway management considers it can push through changes of the kind attempted last Saturday unilaterally and at such short notice.
I should like, too, to express my appreciation to the ladies of the town of Nakina who were out on the platform for trains at three, four, and five in the morning with posters, handing out leaflets, convincing the passengers and crews, shaming the officials who were running the trains yesterday to try to make them see that in a sense they were helping to kill, or lead to the death of, the community of Nakina.
I should like also to mention one of the ironies I spotted during these developments. More than four years ago a group of railwaymen came down from Capreol, Horne-payne and similar places. They saw the minister of labour and got nowhere with their representations against the company bringing in run-throughs. The unions leadership said they could do nothing for them. They came to me and asked me what I would suggest. I said that if they believed in their cause strongly enough they should be prepared to go to jail for it. I said that if they were prepared to do that they would be prepared to withdraw their services. I was hectored and bullied about this later on in the parliamentary committee before which the president of the C.N.R. appeared. But there was

one man who rose to this. He lit a Are and declared there was to be a wildcat strike. He was a man by the name of Shortt. He was the one who got a story to the newspapers, and the C.N.R. changed its mind very shortly-within a day or so. This man was promoted soon after; he became an official. And on Saturday night, in identically the same situation, he was the official who was taking the lead up in that area to make the run-through possible for management. I think this was one of the ironies, that promotion of someone who had been so vigorous on behalf of the men could lead to a situation in which this same man ran through nearly five divisions in some 18 hours pulling trains for management.
The last point I want to touch on in connection with this situation is the way in which the C.N.R. used its officials. One of the contentions some of us have made with regard to the C.N.R. is that there are too many chiefs in comparison with the number of Indians. Well, the C.N.R. had officials scattered right across the country yesterday running trains. I want to know more about this because it is my belief that if the company has all these superfluous officials who know how to run trains so as to be able to cover up when trains are tied up all across the country it does, indeed, have too many chiefs. Obviously if they could trim some of the chiefs they would worry less about a few of the Indians at some of the smaller places.
The Minister of Labour has been very good in this situation, particularly today, and I should like to express my appreciation to him and to his officials. I hope he will be able to bring forward terms of reference broad enough to do the job, and that he will be able to help create the kind of atmosphere between union and management which will establish trust-because trust has diminished, and diminished very severely, on the Canadian National Railways.
[Translationj


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to deal for a few moments only with the question which was debated during this whole day, that is, the C.B.C.
I was naturally surprised to hear the exaggerated statements made from both sides of the house. One side said that the C.B.C. was a den of corruption; the other, that it was a sacrosanct temple. One must nevertheless admit that both sides are exaggerating.
In my opinion, the C.B.C. is at present suffering from a growth problem which is normal in any modern enterprise. Television
Interim Supply
came to Canada some 15 years ago. Therefore, the technical field, the studios and the reception centres had to be developed, and today ever increasing attention is paid to the production of programs.
In view of the fact that radio and television must face competition which is getting stronger and stronger, the C.B.C. feels it necessary to revitalize its ideas, and that is normal. You cannot broadcast programs 12, 15 and 16 hours a day during 10 or 15 years without trying something new, because obviously if you do not do so, people will be dissatisfied and will quit watching television. In this effort of renewal, errors may have been committed and not only within the C.B.C. but everywhere else. We must understand that.
It is obvious that there have been tasteless programs. In my opinion, it was not mainly due to a lack of taste but because in certain fields untalented persons have been launched in such a considerable undertaking. This is when we witnessed unsuccessful programs.
However, we must not blame the C.B.C. as a whole, because when we consider artistic programs, on the French network at least, everyone will agree, I am sure, that in the province of Quebec the C.B.C. introduced some very talented artists whom we had never heard before.
After all, musicians of great talent and real ability have been made known, thanks to the C.B.C. both on radio and on television, and now they tour the province, the country and even foreign countries giving recitals.
There are playwrights and composers who were able to make themselves known throughout the country thanks to the C.B.C., on either the French or the English network.
After all, there have been amateur sport programs which helped our young people and opened new horizons for them.
Of course mistakes have been made, but it must also be recognized that everything was not bad in the C.B.C. There were also successful programs. At least, we should be proud of the success achieved by C.B.C. in contributing to the bringing into notice of our Canadian authors, actors, artists, musicians, athletes, etc.
Errors were made and I think that there were so many protests across the country that the C.B.C. must have known about it then, as well as it knows now, after the discussion in this house today.
When we ask for the setting up of a committee whose members could deal with C.B.C.

Interim Supply
management, we are not asking to administer the corporation as suggested by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) a while ago. No, but we believe that such a meeting would be tremendously important and interesting both for the C.B.C. management and the hon. members. The C.B.C. is after all a government agency, and I agree that its directors must enjoy some independence as regards programming.
A short while ago the C.B.C. was compared with a business firm. Since the shareholders of a company meet the directors at least once a year and tell them what they think of their policies, I think that it should be the same with the C.B.C. whose operations cost the Canadian taxpayers between $80 and $85 million a year.
But the taxpayers' representatives have not even the opportunity of telling, once in a while, the officials of that crown corporation what the Canadian people think of them, while they can do it in the case of the C.N.R. As a matter of fact, we know that it had to be done, fortunately, with the administration of the C.N.R. in order that changes which we have noticed lately be made.
It was fortunate that hon. members could meet the president of Air Canada to tell him what they thought of Air Canada's service, for today we can see that its officials improved certain things. C.N.R. officials have also improved certain things.
The president of the C.N.R. may have found it hard during the few days he was a witness before the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee. The same thing can be said about the president of Air Canada, but at least they heard what the representatives of the people thought about those crown corporations and what changes they wanted made.
The presidents of those two crown corporations thought it advisable to take the members' representations into account, and even if changes were not made too quickly, at least some were made and the service was improved.
Why should we not be afforded the same opportunity to tell the C.B.C. officials what we think not only of the C.B.C.'s administration, but its programming, while not interfering with their independence, their freedom, in short, giving them, as before, a free hand in the administration of that agency?
Such an exchange of views would not be useless. In the past, it proved useful in the case of other crown corporations.
Political programs have been mentioned. In my opinion, hon. members, even those who

sit on the government side, would have some rather bitter remarks to make in certain cases to certain C.B.C. officials concerning the anarchy and violence they helped spread for a while. Indeed, Liberal members were the first to complain about that.
Would it not be useful to bring some examples and concrete facts to the attention of C.B.C. directors and officers?
Even if a director is competent it does not mean that he is an authority in all fields such as programming.
Maybe the president is a good accountant- though I doubt it in view of his deficit of $85 million-but even if he is a good businessman, that does not mean that he has the ability to judge the character and atmosphere of poitical programs, cultural programs or the general programming.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would you please speak slowly.


Gilles Grégoire: I shall try to speak more slowly, Mr. Chairman, to make it easier for the hon. member to understand, but after the arguments advanced a while ago by the hon. member for Halifax in his speech, I think that this will be hard.
In any event, such a meeting would be beneficial to everyone because, among other things, in the field of so-called political programs, they will have to admit that for some time now, the C.B.C. has been going astray and that there are in the service responsible for political programs individuals who are more interested in promoting certain ideas than putting forward ideas representing the average opinion of the Canadian people.
There are individuals-and this may be quite human-in the C.B.C., a crown corporation, who are only too anxious to please the party in office. Knowingly or unknowingly- and probably knowingly rather than unknowingly-they try to direct these programs according to a given policy rather than leave the corporation really independent, as some Liberal members were saying a while ago.
But, Mr. Chairman, over and above the C.B.C., there is today a more important problem in Canada. I refer to the economic situation prevailing in this country.
The Minister of Finance may tell us that Canada is prosperous because it has a surplus of $395 million but that is not a sign of prosperity; it means that taxes have increased and that more money has been taken from the taxpayers and the Canadian corporations.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) may tell us that unemployment is decreasing. Why? Because his statistics are inaccurate.

The Minister of Finance counts as jobless only those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, when there are others who do not work and are in receipt of social insurance; those people are also unemployed.
Unemployment did not decrease, it even increased. Statistics were falsified, altered.
The Minister of Finance speaks in turn about prosperity; maybe for the rich-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: -but not for the population as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock? [Text]
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whoever is acting as house leader whether we will continue tomorrow with interim supply, or is the government bringing in some important legislation tomorrow for the consideration of the house?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more important than interim supply. We will continue with the discussion of interim supply tomorrow. When it is concluded we will take up redistribution, and the labour code.


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

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, October 26, 1964
Various representations have been passed on to me by the Acting Minister of Transport with reference to the timing of the implementation of Canadian National operational plans for running through Nakina and Wainright. As the record shows we have made offers to purchase residences of employees who may move their homes from Nakina and have also undertaken moving expenses involved. Moreover at all times we have expressed willingness to very implementation timing or postpone inaugurations subject only to completion within two years.
We fully believe our discussions with employees affected and their union representatives would have reached amicable understandings as has been the case elsewhere and that present situation is due largely to intervention by third parties which has led to misunderstandings and distortions of actual situation.
We now wish to advise that if government is willing to appoint an independent and impartial person to examine into reasonableness of our proposals and plans for implementation Canadian National will withdraw run-through plans which were effective Sunday October 25 and withhold further action until report is made. We must assume of course that report can be made within reasonable period and respectfully suggest that three months should be ample. Will you please let me know if government is willing to give this assistance.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, October 26, 1964
I very much welcome the suggestion in your telegram. On the understanding that you will withdraw run-through plans and withhold further action, the government is moving at once to appoint an independent and impartial person to undertake the examination you refer to. In view of the deterioration in the railway situation I am announcing your proposal and the government's action immediately.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 27, 1964