1966-11-23

Mr, Herbert E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixteenth report of the standing committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in English and French.

In this report, Mr. Speaker, the committee is recommending to the house that the banking legislation have a further extension to April to permit the committee of the house to complete its present studies of the new legislation.



INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on industry, research and energy-Mr. Cashin.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of a recently signed memorandum of understanding between the Canadian and Hong Kong governments under which Hong Kong has agreed to restrain certain cotton textile exports to Canada. May I suggest that the memorandum be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents, and is it agreed that the documents in question will be printed as an annex to Votes and Proceedings'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	On what date did the government of Canada receive a copy of an address of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec relating to the Legislative Council of that province?
2.	From whom was it received and what was the nature of the request for action in respect thereto?
3.	What actions were taken by the government of Canada in respect thereto, specifying date and nature of each such action?
4.	Upon what dates and with whom in the United Kingdom or Canada have there been communications in respect thereto, excluding from answer reference to communications from non-governmental bodies or persons?
5.	What was the nature of each such communication?
6.	Is any further action in respect to this address now contemplated by the government of Canada and, if so, under what circumstances and of what nature?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: 1.	May 31, 1965.
2.	Two addresses were received from the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. The first addressed to the Governor General, requested that the second be transmitted by him to the Queen.
3,	4, and 5. These questions relate to advice by ministers to the Crown. Such advice has always been regarded as confidential and details concerning it cannot be made public. The government did, however, communicate the addresses of the Legislative Assembly to the Crown with indication that, in its view, the advice of the Executive Council of Quebec in relation to a matter affecting solely the constitution of Quebec should be followed.
6. Consistent with the position indicated above, any further action will depend on the views of the ministers now in office in Quebec. This situation has been explained to the United Kingdom government.

November 23, I960
Questions


FISCAL TRANSACTIONS SINCE CONFEDERATION
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Since 1867, what amount has the government (a) borrowed in any manner (b) paid as interest on previous debts (c) paid as capital payments on previous debts?
2.	Since 1867, has the government continued to pay interest or capital payments with regard to debts incurred before 1867 and, if so (a) have all such debts been paid (b) are the amounts paid to reimburse such debts included in 1(b) and (c) above?
3.	As of the last federal fiscal year, what was the total of (a) the capital borrowed (b) the interest paid on such loans (c) the capital reimbursed?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	(a) $92,507.6 million; (b) it is not possible to trace interest paid on debt existing prior to 1867; (c) the balance of unmatured debt at the time of Confederation was $72.8 million and this has been repaid.
2.	Yes; (a) yes; (b) yes.
3.	(a) $92,580.4 million (includes the $72.8 million unmatured debt at the time of Confederation); (b) $17,291.0 million; (c) $73,302.3 million.
Note: It is not possible to isolate transactions with respect to debt existing at the time of Confederation. Consequently, any redemption and refinancing of such debt is amalgamated with transactions during the period subsequent to 1867.
Sources: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Department of Finance.


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. Forrestall: What Is the total of pay and allowances during the fiscal year 1965-66, for servicemen at each of the following bases: (a) H.M.C.S. Stadacona (b) H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax (c) H.M.C.S. Shearwater (d) R.C.A.F. Greenwood (e) H.M.C.S. Cornwallis (f) Gorsebrook (g) Eastern Air Command (h) R.C.A.F. Summerside (i) C.F.B. Camp Gagetown (j) R.C.A.F. Chatham (k) military radio stations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Forrestall: How many members of the Armed Services are presently stationed at (a) H.M.C.S. Stadacona (b) H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax (c) H.M.C.S. Shearwater
(d)	R.C.A.F. Greenwood (e) H.M.C.S. Cornwallis (f) R.C.A.F. Gorsebrook (g) Eastern Air Command
(h)	R.C.A.F. Summerside (i) C.F.B. Camp Gagetown
(i)	R.C.A.F. Chatham (k) military radio stations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is not possible to separate (a) and (b) therefore 8,699 represents C.F.B. Halifax which includes all units located in the Halifax area, H.M.C.S. Stadacona, H.M.C. Dockyard, Maritime Command Headquarters and ships at sea, (c) 2,334; (d) 1,898;
(e)	803; (f) this is a townsite for some of the married service personnel in Maritime Command; (g) this was a wartime designation and no longer exists; (h) 1,302; (i) 3,758;
(j)	1,130; (k) 274.


COMPARISON BETWEEN ARMED SERVICES AND CIVILIAN EARNINGS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the present average earnings of (a) commissioned officers, male and female (b) other ranks, male and female, in the armed services in (a) Nova Scotia (ii) New Brunswick (iii) Prince Edward Island?
2.	What are the present average earnings for all occupations, male and female in (a) Canada (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the departments of National Defence and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question as neither expenditure data nor strength figures are recorded in a manner which would allow production of such information. However, the average annual earnings of all service officers is $9,891.41 and other ranks $5,523.70.
2.	Average weekly wages and salaries- industrial composite, April 1966 (preliminary data): (a) Canada, $95.80; (b) Nova Scotia, $76.16; (c) New Brunswick, $80.91; (d) Prince Edward Island, $64.15.


SECTION 79c OF THE INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Has the government indicated its intention to amend section 79c of the Income Tax Act and, if so, has it completed the draft proposal and when will it be submitted to the House?
November 23, 1966

2.	If not, what is the required delay before resuming the registration of pension plans in connection with section 79c?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Yes, in the budget speech on March 29, 1966. Amendments to implement the proposed changes will be included in a bill to amend the Income Tax Act which the government hopes to place before parliament before the end of this year.
2.	Not applicable.


STUDY OF SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Has the weights and measures division of the Department of Trade and Commerce completed their study on speedometers and odometers on new Canadian cars to ascertain if they are accurate?
2.	If so, is it available to the general public and from whom?
3.	If the study is not completed, when will it be completed?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliameniary Secretary lo Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. In the matter of odometer measurement, the United States national bureau of standards carefully reviewed all phases, and issued a comprehensive report. Since odometers are of United States manufacture, and companies there have undertaken to meet the n.b.s. standards, it was deemed unnecessary to duplicate the investigation. Initially the Canadian program will be based on the specifications and tolerances adopted in the aforementioned report, and will be initiated at the "use" level. Experience will indicate if variations are required.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	The program will be undertaken as staff and equipment are available. It is the intention that it be under way in 1967.


DAMS FOR FLOOD AND POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. Hales: Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received representations from the Department of Energy and Resources Management of the province of Ontario asking for federal aid in the program of flood and pollution control involving the construction of major dams?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Since assuming his present portfolio, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has received no representation from the Ontario Department of Energy and Resources Management asking
Questions
for federal aid in the program of flood and pollution control involving the construction of major dams.
However, the department recently received for advance information and review, a brief on flood control and water conservation involving the construction of dams in the Grand river watershed. A formal representation from the Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources Management is anticipated in the near future.


NUMBERS TRAINING IN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Godin: 1.	During the years 1963 and 1964, how many persons underwent military training in (a) the army (b) the navy (c) the air force?
2.	Between 1960 and 1965, were there any fatal accidents during the training of the members of (a) the army (b) the navy (c) the air force, and if so, how many for each service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. All personnel in the Armed Forces receive some form of military training in any given year. Therefore, total strengths for December 31, each year are shown below:
	1963	1964
Navy	21,432	20,133Army	49,253	47,142Air Force	51,830	48,973
2. From 1 January, 1960, to 31 December, 1965, there were six Navy, 36 Army, 59 Air Force fatally injured during training.


MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL COVERAGE FOR IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is an answer available to part 2 of question No. 2,005 which was removed from the order paper?
2.	If not, when may one be expected?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1 and 2. The
answer given to starred question No. 2,005 appearing in Hansard No. 141, page 9121, should have read as follows:
1. and 2. The Ministers of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration inform me that representations were made by International House of London concerning medical and hospitalization expenses incurred by newly arrived immigrants. Various arrangements have been in effect for many years to ensure adequate protection against such expenses during an immigrant's initial period of establishment in Canada, but only where the newcomer is not in a position to pay

November 23, 1966
Questions
these costs himself. Essentially, this coverage extends only to immigrants who become indigent or who are in receipt of some form of assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The representations in question go much further than this and suggest some form of protection for newcomers who might have their successful establishment jeopardized through the dissipation of all of their available capital by unexpected medical expenses. A study is being made to see what further measures might be considered.


ADMIRALS IN ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi): Since the inception of the Royal Canadian Navy (a) how many admirals and rear admirals have there been (b) how many of these were trained in Canada (c) how many were Canadian bom (d) what was their mother tongue?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: (a) 43; (b) seven were trained in Canada only, 35 in Canada and Britain and one in Canada and the United States; (c) 31; personnel statistics are not maintained in a manner which would provide this information.


TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO AVOID TAXATION
Mr. Webb: What regulations, if any, are there which are designed or intended to prohibit, restrict or penalize the transfer of Canadian funds to foreign (including Commonwealth) countries by Canadian citizens or corporations in order to avoid or minimize Canadian taxes?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are no Canadian regulations which prohibit or restrict the transfer of funds from Canada to another country. The Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act contain many provisions designed to prevent tax avoidance.


COST OF EXPO '67
Mr. Webb: What has been the actual cost of Expo '67 to date?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The agreement entered into on January 18, 1963 by the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal stipulates that the government of Canada shall pay 50 per cent of the cost of the Exhibition; the government

of the province of Quebec, 37J per cent; and the city of Montreal, 12J per cent. The gross expenditures to September 30, 1966 are $155,497,466 which includes capital, administration, operations, public relations and financing.
Revenue accruing before, during and after the Exhibition from the sale of passports and bonus books, concessions, royalties, sponsorship, advertising and sale of assets, etc., will be applied against gross expenditures.


ENGLISH AND FRENCH SPEAKING JUDGES
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many English speaking judges are there in the province of Quebec?
2.	How many French speaking judges are there in Ontario?
3.	How many French speaking and English speaking judges are there in New Brunswick?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1, 2 and 3. The Department of Justice has no record of this information.


WILLIAM LEE-RANK AND PENSION BENEFITS
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did William Lee, now special assistant to the Minister of National Defence, receive his promotion to the rank of Group Captain?
2.	What was his rank prior to promotion, and how long did he hold the previous rank?
3.	What is the amount of Group Captain's Lee's pension per month, and on what rank is his pension based?
4.	What salary does former Group Captain Lee receive as special assistant to the Minister of National Defence?
Hen. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): 1. 17 June, 1963.
2.	Wing Commander from 1 August, 1958, to 16 June, 1963.
3.	Although entitlement exists to an annuity of $375.13 per month under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, annuity payments have been restricted pursuant to section 17 (2) of the Act and Section 12 (A) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations. The annuity is based on total pensionable service of 20 years 348 days and the pay and allowances received during the best consecutive six years of service, i.e., in the rank of Wing Commander from 12 December, 1958, to 16 June, 1963, and Group Captain from 17 June, 1963, to date of retirement 11 December, 1964.
4.	$15,000.
November 23, 1966


X-RAY REQUIREMENTS OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Are all immigrants to Canada required to have a large X-ray on entry into Canada?
2.	Are all students and other persons immigrating to Canada under the Colombo Plan checked in the same manner as above?
3.	Is a person entering Canada under the Colombo Plan, and having stopped over in another Commonwealth country for one to three months, required to have the same large X-ray as the above?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. A large chest X-ray is not a requirement for all immigrants to Canada at the time of entry. However, a large X-ray film is ordinarily a requirement for each adult immigrant prior to departure for Canada as part of the medical examination for Canadian immigration purposes; under limited circumstances, as when the film is prepared at certain of the department's overseas offices, a chest X-ray film 4"x4" is acceptable. Persons who have completed medical formalities utilizing departmental facilities overseas are permitted entry without further examination providing the six months' period of medical validity has not expired. However, persons whose medical status was assessed by departmental medical officers on the basis of medical evidence submitted under the preliminary medical screening procedures are subject to medical examination, including chest X-ray, at the time of entry.
2.	Yes. See 1 above.
3.	The requirement for a chest X-ray for Colombo Plan students entering Canada from another Commonwealth country, visited en-route to Canada, is the same as if he were entering directly from his home country. (See 1 above).


SPRINGHILL, N.S.-YOUNG OFFENDERS' PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	On what date will construction of the Young Offenders' Penal Institution at Springbill be completed, and what is the reason for the delay in completing the institution?
2.	What was the amount paid to the town of Springhill in 1965 in grants in lieu of taxes, and what is the estimated grant that will be available to the town of Springhill for the year 1966?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the departments of Public Works and Finance as follows:
1. Construction will be completed in December 1966. Any delays were caused by unforeseen sub-soil conditions and by added facilities.
Questions
2. The following amounts have been paid to the town of Springhill in lieu of taxes on federal property: (a) in 1965-$14,407-for the town's 1965 taxation year (no part of this payment relates to the Young Offenders' Penal Institution); (b) in 1966-$92,200-for the town's 1966 taxation year (of this, $80,409 relates to the Young Offenders' Penal Institution).


PARRSBORO, N.S., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a site been selected for the construction of a new federal building at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date was the site purchased, from whom and for what amount?
2.	On what date does the government intend to initiate construction of the new federal building at Parrsboro?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. A site is under consideration.
2. Until a final site selection has been made, it is impossible to say when construction will commence.


INCIDENCE OF SUICIDE AS CAUSE OF DEATH
Mr. Sfanbury: 1.	Does suicide now rank second only to accidents as a cause of death among young adult Canadians?
2.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare studying, or will it study, the incidence of suicide in Canada, its causes and appropriate preventive programs?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Among adult Canadians the incidence of suicides ranks third as a cause of death. For example in 1964, within the 15 to 29 year age group there were 2,482 deaths due to accidents; 402 deaths due to cancer and 269 deaths due to suicide.
As part of its general surveillance of diseases the Department of National Health and Welfare keeps in close touch with the incidence of suicides in Canada. Although studies are not at the present time being conducted the department is actively engaged in collecting information on the causes and prevention of suicides and on other mental and behavioral disorders. A number of research projects aimed at a greater understanding and control of depression and anxiety are being supported through the Public Health Research Grants Program.
10238	COMMONS
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate PRICES RECEIVED ON WHEAT SALES


Mr. Godin: What was the price per ton of the Canadian wheat sold under agreements with the following countries: Bulgaria, October 8, 1963; Poland, November 5, 1966; Czechoslovakia, October 29, 1963?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: A number of individual sales contracts have been concluded under the long term agreements with these countries. It is not the policy of the Government or the Canadian Wheat Board to make public contract prices or contract dates as such information might be prejudicial to marketing operations. Following the conclusion of a master contract between the Canadian Wheat Board and the appropriate agency in Bulgaria, Poland and Czechoslovakia, the actual purchases are made from private grain companies which are authorized agents of the Canadian Wheat Board. The trade's operations are of a commercial nature and information concerning their negotiations with foreign buyers is not available to the Government.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, since May 16 my question No. 1,500 has remained on the order paper unanswered. Will the government shortly be able to answer it, because it has been on the order paper for quite some time now.


Mr. Stewart:: I shall ascertain if an answer will be produced soon.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



HOUSING


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; the action of the government in raising the National Housing Act interest rate on houses to 7J per cent thus placing such housing beyond the reach of the majority of Canadians and resulting in increased hardship for home purchasers throughout Canada. I have copies of the motion in English and in French.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please address the Chair on urgency of debate.
IMrs. Rideout.]
DEBATES	November 23, 1966


Reid Scott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit five reasons for urgency of debate. The first reason I submit is that there will be no further opportunity during this session to debate the matter. The estimates of the minister are passed, there are no more supply motions and therefore there will not be any other opportunity in my judgment to have such debate.
The second reason for urgency is because the Economic Council no more than two days ago issued a report warning of the dangers of a rapidly intensifying housing shortage. Knowing the restrained language of the council this means that we already have a housing problem of major and massive proportions. Every week end hon. members are inundated with telephone calls from people pleading for places in which to live at prices they can afford. But there are none.
A further need for urgency arises from the fact that since the Economic Council of Canada obtains most of its information from government sources, the government has itself known all along about this difficult situation, but has ignored it completely and failed to act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a point of order. I understand that argument at this stage is limited to the question of the urgency of debate and it is not competent to one hon. member to take advantage of the situation to make the speech he would otherwise make on the substance of the motion itself were it allowed. I submit that this is precisely what the hon. member for Danforth is doing at this time, thereby taking away the time set aside by the house for other business.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforth: On the point of order Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the minister that I really do not understand the sudden sensitivity shown on that side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Just obey the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must seek the cooperation of the hon. member in keeping in mind the rule which says that at this time the contributions of hon. members must be limited to the question of the urgency of debate, and nothing else.


Reid Scott: I am trying to do that, and if I had not been so rudely interrupted I think I would have been finished by now. The only response of the government has been a rise in the interest rate which means that on a $15,000 mortgage over 30 years the buyer will now pay back-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
November 23, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Obviously he is making the speech which he would want to make, I assume, if the adjournment of the house were granted by the Chair at this time. But what he has to do now is convince the Chair that there is urgency of debate at this moment, and that the normal business of the house should be set aside for the purpose of discussing the matter he has in mind.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: I apologize. I was so upset by this abomination which hon. gentlemen opposite call a housing policy that I was carried away.
The fourth reason for my contention that there is urgency of debate is this: All indications are that this step will not serve to attract more money into housing but will merely start another upward spiral of interest rates, an increase caused and sanctioned by the government. It is therefore urgent that we should debate this policy today and try to convince the government not to take this harmful step but, rather, provide the mortgage money itself instead of acting in such a way as to cause so much hardship to the vast majority of our people.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Heal Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that this motion for the adjournment of the business of the house, under standing order 26, is completely in accordance with the needs and requirements of the Canadian people.
In fact, last night, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) made his statement, he put forward the need for urgent action on the part of the government in case perhaps the stock exchange did not open its doors this morning, on account of a delay which the minister could not tolerate any longer. That is the reason why he read the statement at the time of adjournment of the house last night, referring to the urgency of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the Canadian people, I believe we should discuss now, openly, such an increase in the interest rate with regard to the small workers, the plain people of this country who would like to purchase a house. Now the increased interest rate will certainly not help the people but rather the financiers in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the question sufficiently urgent for us to debate it at the earliest opportunity and so as to fight against this increased interest which constitutes pure and simple inflation in Canada.
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, this motion for adjournment is urgent for two main reasons. The last report of the Economic Council of Canada, which we have received, shows a serious decline in the field of construction and recommends that the government resorts to every means to boost this economic area. Instead, the government increases the interest rate to 7| per cent.
We notice that in the first ten months of 1966, the construction of houses has decreased by 13 per cent. Following this reliable report prepared by representatives of employers, labour unions and universities, it is important that all governments do something to boost the field of construction which has been declining in a dramatic way this last year.
The second reason for the urgency of the debate is that-as we read in the papers and according to various learned economists in the country-a slowdown of the economy is expected in 1967.
Therefore, the government must plan and justify the measures it takes concerning the various sectors of the economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we discuss this 7J per cent increase today.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: On the question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing to realize is that the action taken by the government is not an ordinary one. It must have been taken because a serious deterioration has occurred in regard to the situation respecting the money supply in this country. Because of that, and because there will be no other opportunity to discuss this matter, I believe that the government owes the house more than the announcement that it gave us last night on an important matter that had been dealt with in the economic report that was tabled just prior to the release of that announcement.


Mr. G. L. Chaiterlon (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two on the matter of urgency of debate. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) had made this announcement last week before the amendment to the National Housing Act had been passed, then there could have been no excuse for moving today to adjourn the regular business of the house. Surely the government must have known at that time what it intended to do, and I maintain it deliberately withheld this announcement so that we would not have an opportunity to discuss it in the house.
November 23, 1966

N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate
The Economic Council report indicates that there is a crisis in housing. I maintain that the main crisis exists among those who cannot afford to buy houses, and the effect of the action taken by the minister and the government will be to aggravate the crisis with respect to those Canadians who cannot afford to build new houses. I also maintain that the situation is so serious that the house today should have an opportunity to discuss this important matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make on a point of order, namely whether the business of the house ought to be set aside to deal with this particular matter raised by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott): May I remind Your Honour and the house that the house leader has listed for consideration today, tomorrow and Friday, all the remaining estimates before the house, included within these estimates are the estimates of the Department of Finance'-*


Mr. Siarr:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: - and it ought to be possible to have a discussion-


Michael Starr: No. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister inadvertently-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member takes issue with a statement made by the minister, and I wonder if he might not do this after we have heard the argument the minister proposes to advance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that among the estimates to be dealt with-


Mr. Churchill:: By the guillotine.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -are included the estimates of the Department of Finance. Last night the house leader stated it would be possible that requests could be made to have a variation in the order of consideration of the estimates which were listed last night. Therefore if provision were made between now and Friday to set aside some time for a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Finance, I think this would meet the point raised by the hon. member for Danforth and provide an opportunity to debate this important matter. These estimates have yet to be passed by the house.


Mr. Douglas:: This matter does not come under the Minister of Finance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under these estimates it would be possible to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Danforth. I suggest that because of this opportunity the requirements of urgency at this time are not met.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order as expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the guillotine which comes down on discussions in this house, based on the temporary rules which provide for 30 days debate on all estimates and interim supply, and because of the shortage of time, prior to the announcement that was made last night an agreement had been reached concerning certain departments to be considered and what time would be allotted to those departments for the balance of the week. This had been agreed upon, and then the announcement was made. Now we are being asked to change the order so that the Department of Finance might come in. I am very doubtful whether this matter can be discussed properly under the estimates of the Department of Finance, because it has to do with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for which the Minister of Labour is responsible, and his estimates will not come up for discussion at this time.
I think this is an urgent matter and one which should be discussed now, because as a result of the announcement last night there will be no opportunity to do this between now and Friday when the guillotine will fall on all the estimates before the house. I think that today we should have the opportunity to discuss this very serious matter which has come up to the great surprise of hon. members of the house as well as to the people of this country.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to deal with the argument made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As I understand it, his only argument was that this was not an urgent matter for debate by reason of the fact that it could be debated later this week on the estimates of the Department of Finance. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the only items remaining in the Department of Finance, as shown at page 16 of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, are matters affecting the Auditor General and the insurance branch. If the estimates of this department come up-and I am informed that this is not one of the departments which by agreement between the house
November 23, 1966	COMMONS
leaders was to come up before five thirty on Friday-it is perfectly obvious that between five thirty and six o'clock on Friday afternoon it would be quite impossible to debate this matter.
May I say just a few words about the matter of urgency of debate. I do not think anyone seriously can deny the urgency in respect of the housing shortage, to begin with. That is attested to by the recent annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. If we have this debate, it might be that in the course of the debate we would be able to persuade the government to move away from this drastic and most unfortunate step which in our view adds to the urgency of the crisis and diminishes the ability of people to acquire housing.
May I say, if one can draw from his own experience, that if there is any matter as urgent, there is at least no matter more urgent than the question of the shortage of housing.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am back in my constituency from week to week. People come to me who are under eviction notices because they cannot afford to pay the ever increasing prices largely contributed to by the ever increasing interest rates being charged. This is a very urgent matter as far as many Canadians are concerned, and because we have no other opportunity to debate it I suggest the time involved now would be time well spent and that it would be in accordance with the purpose of this rule.


Mr. Howard Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, let me say very briefly in speaking to the question of urgency that in the year 1965 some 85 per cent of all Central Mortgage and Housing loans went to earners with incomes of $5,000 and upward. This is one of the few countries in the modern western world which has not got a low cost housing program attached to an urban renewal program. Since the Economic Council report which was published a couple of days ago outlined this real crisis relating to a housing shortage, the interest rate has gone up. It is my submission that for many low and middle income earners in this country a crisis has already arisen and the time to discuss it is now.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this debate is undoubtedly a result of the important question presently before the house. The urgency of the question was acknowledged last night, when the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) requested the unanimous consent of 23033-648J
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate the house to make a statement. This unanimous consent is an exceptional measure, to which a minister resorts when a problem appears to be urgent, and there really was urgency because the house gave its unanimous consent, enabling the minister to make his statement and comment on it.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister gives that much more weight to the urgent and important nature of the problem, namely housing.
If the decision announced by the hon. minister last night increases the urgency of the matter, it is obvious that it is even more urgent that it be debated today since it is the minister himself who contributed to the urgency of the matter by the statement he made.
This statement made last night by the minister, Mr. Speaker, is the third of a series of measures taken by the government, which have resulted in a truly disastrous situation in the field of housing. First it was the 11 per cent tax on building materials, then we had the $500 bonus-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe will admit, I am sure, that he is discussing and presently even going beyond the scope of the subject which the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) wishes to discuss this afternoon. The hon. member should limit his comments at this time, to the urgency of the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out the importance of the matter and the urgency of the debate, and I was merely stating that this constituted the third discriminatory measure against housing.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this: when a motion like this one is introduced, if it really is out of order, members on the other side of the house will immediately bring forth extremely convincing arguments, to show that the motion is out of order.
Now then, if we take a look at the arguments put forth by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), we see that not one of them is valid. Consequently, this adds that much more weight to the arguments presented by those who want a debate on the matter, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare could not find any argument to overrule those of the hon. member for Danforth.
We are told that the question may be debated on consideration of the estimates of the Department of Finance. Well, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under
10242	COMMONS
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate past agreements, now comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and, on page 15 of the order paper, we find that the estimates of the Department of Labour have been passed.
This means that when we take up the estimates of the Department of Finance, the Minister of Labour can raise a point of order and tell us that we are out of order, because the National Housing Act comes under his department, and he will be right in so doing. Therefore, I do not see why the Minister of National Health and Welfare would seek to mislead the house by saying that we can discuss this problem during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Finance.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that this is one of the important economic problems we have had to face in Canada, and since the announcement was made last night and every passing day causes an even worse problem, I think it is urgent that we should debate the matter this very day, because companies will now begin to arrange for increased interest rates. We must not wait until the old forms are thrown away, and new ones are printed, because then this gap will be maintained. Well, I believe that the problem is important and that the debate must take place not later than today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to comment on the statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood because it is a misstatement of the facts to suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Is the minister allowed to speak twice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand that the minister is attempting to speak a second time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Greenwood asserted that only those items in relation to the Auditor General and the insurance branch are still before the committee of supply.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The fact is that all the items of the Department of Finance are before the committee because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	November 23, 1966


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Where is the question of privilege in that suggestion?


George James McIlraith: There is a question of privilege because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question of privilege.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I in as concise a form as I can-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -draw your attention to the fact that in citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition three conditions are laid down which a motion of this kind must meet. It is my submission that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) meets all three of these conditions. The first one reads as follows:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
As Your Honour knows, I have quoted various speakers who have interpreted that in a little broader sense to include anything that is within the administrative responsibility of parliament. Whether the reference is to parliament or the government this matter is one that comes under that administrative responsibility, and therefore without question the motion meets with that condition.
The second condition is to be found in the second paragraph of citation 100 which states:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
Later in that paragraph there is a use of the famous words "prima facie". If ever there was a prima facie case that the public interest will Suffer if this matter is not given immediate attention I suggest that we have one in this particular instance.
The third condition, and I am trying to keep my commitment to make these three points clear and brief, is in paragraph 3 which reads:
'Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means 'urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
November 23, 1966
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I suggest that not only do the rules of the house and the procedures that we have agreed upon prevent this subject from being brought up at an a early opportunity, but they prevent it from being brought up at all in the current session of parliament, however long it may last. I recognize the point which the Minister of National Health and Welfare was trying to make, namely that in point of fact the entire estimates of the Department of Finance are still before us. There are two obvious answers to that. The first is that this matter does not come under the Department of Finance, but that it comes under the minister responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I wish to draw to the hon. member's attention that under the National Housing Act the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the minister responsible for the administration of the act have some joint responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Labour which minister it was who announced the order in council in the House of Commons last night? It was the Minister of Labour.
I submit that the argument that technically we have an opportunity to deal with the estimates of the Department of Finance is completely meaningless. We have reached an agreement that the rules as properly interpreted will bring the discussion of estimates to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. on Friday of this week. We have also reached an agreement among house leaders, the terms of which were placed on Hansard last night, regarding the five or six departments we are to discuss between now and 5.30 p.m. on Friday. All that will happen to the estimates of the Department of Finance is that at 5.30 on Friday the items will be called and there will be no further opportunity for debate or amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question? Would the hon. gentleman not agree to forgo the pleasure of considering the estimates of my department in order to give sufficient time to deal with the estimates of the Department of Finance, if this question is so important?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that could be agreed to, it would provide a solution, but some members want the Department of Transport to be discussed. Before this matter was disclosed to the house and to the country the house leaders met in good faith and divided up the balance
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate of the time among the departments which the various parties felt should have priority.
I submit that even if a change were made, it would still not be in order to discuss at the time when we consider the estimates of the Department of Finance, the interest rate under the National Housing Act which the Minister of Labour announced last night. Therefore, in practical terms, there will be no opportunity this week to discuss the matter. There will be no more supply motions and there will be no further opportunities in the course of this session. Therefore I submit this matter is one that comes within the responsibility of the federal parliament. Likewise it is so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. It is also one that comes under the rule of urgency of debate because the ordinary rules of procedure do not permit another opportunity to be given us to discuss it in this session.
On the basis of these three conditions laid down in citation 100 it seems to me Your Honour should rule this motion to be in order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this question of urgency of debate I will try to relate my point to the actual motion before us, which I will read to the house.
I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the action of the government in raising the N.H.A. interest rate on houses to 7.25 per cent this placing such housing beyond the reach of the majority of Canadians and resulting in increased hardship for home purchasers throughout Canada.
It will be seen that the motion does not relate to the subject which has been discussed here in dealing with the urgency of debate, namely, shortage of housing. The motion relates to the interest rate on N.H.A. loans.


An hon. Member:: Are you playing trick or treat?


George James McIlraith: The point raised earlier this afternoon referred to the shortage of housing. The interest rate was raised because no loans are available under the present low rate. This change would make loans available and this would increase housing. The subject that is now before us is whether or not the business of the house can be set aside, or should be set aside, to discuss the matter of the interest rate which falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

November 23, 1966

N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate
I respectfully suggest that since the interest rate-not on all mortgage loans but merely on N.H.A. loans-is only one of several facets having to do with housing, it is not germane to discuss whether or not shortage of housing requires discussion. The matter before us is whether the interest rates on N.H.A. loans are such that the business of the house should be put aside to discuss them. I respectfully suggest that on that ground none of the criteria in citation 100 has been met.
I wish to clear up a second point because there has been a considerable misstatement of fact although it may have been inadvertent on what was said in the discussion on business of the house. I will quote what I said last night in announcing the business of the house. I rarely quote myself but sometimes it is necessary. I said.
Mr. Speaker, as an indication of the business of the house, and this is again an attempt to meet the provision of the rules whereby the opposition have the right to designate the calling of the departments-[DOT]
And I then merely listed the departments in the order in which the opposition had asked them to be called, after agreement among themselves.
If the opposition care to discuss the finance department's estimates, they can do so; it is their business.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at this point I have a question of privilege. It was not the opposition alone which asked for the estimates of the departments to be called in this order. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare messed it up later on, and we adhered to his request.


George James McIlraith: I could turn to the new
provisional rule 56 which makes it clear, but in any event it appears in the record of Hansard at page 10224. Therefore the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this is a matter of urgency because there will not be further opportunity to discuss it, is not well founded in fact because it is within the control of the opposition to decide whether we will discuss it. I want to make this clear.


Michael Starr: Sit down. Your are cutting in on our time.


George James McIlraith: For the simple reasons I have given I respectfully submit that the important business of the house having to do with the expenditure of many hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds should not be set aside for the discussion of the matter of the interest rate on N.H.A. loans at this time.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, a number of points have been raised which I think Your Honour should take into consideration, but I suggest that the argument advanced by the house leader in the last few minutes is questionable. The very basis of his argument will bear me out because he has suggested that the alleged critical shortage of housing in the country today is not the subject matter of the motion that is now before us. As I look at it I would agree with him, because the motion request the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the action of the government in a certain field. I therefore suggest to you, sir, that the basis of the motion is with regard to the action of the government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If you turn your attention, Mr. Speaker, to subclause (8) of citation 100 you will find a position stated by the Speaker of the house in the United Kingdom. I will not read it all, but after dealing with a certain matter he goes on:
[DOT]-because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government-
I underline those words, Mr. Speaker.
-for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject.
Then the Speaker of that day went on to say that that is not the purpose of the standing order. If that is not the purpose of the standing order-and he deals with this matter of censure of the government-then I suggest that the provisions of standing order 26 are for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the opposition of censuring the government when an urgent matter of public importance requires them to do so. So I think on that basis, Mr. Speaker, there is a valid point, and that the provisions of standing order 26, as I have said, are for the purpose of censuring the government when a situation of this nature arises.
I think that the provisions of paragraph (1) of citation 100, which state that the matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government, are valid here. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the matter certainly meets that requirement. I am not so certain whether it meets the requirement in paragraph (2), that the matter is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given
November 23, 196G	COMMONS DEBATES	10245
immediate attention, because the argument could be advanced that this step might allow a greater volume of financing in the housing field, rather than a smaller volume. But this kind of argument should be advanced after the motion is allowed, if it is allowed.
Paragraph (3) of citation 100 defines urgency of debate as when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough. I suggest that at this stage of the session there will not be an opportunity to bring on this kind of motion or to bring up this kind of subject matter on the part of the opposition. As has been pointed out, supply motions, and so on, are coming to an end, and so are the opportunities for the opposition to pick the subject matter to be discussed. So within the confines of the meaning of urgency of debate I suggest that because this week is the last week for the discussion of supply motions there will not be another opportunity.
The argument advanced by the minister of health and welfare that the estimates of the Minister of Finance could be brought on, and that this would provide an opportunity to discuss this matter, may be true. But knowing that the house passed an order last night that all of the remaining questions dealing with supply shall be put at 5.30 on Friday, it does not seem to me that it makes very much difference whether this matter is discussed under the estimates of the Department of Finance or on the motion moved this afternoon. It will take time away from our debate on the various estimates that have been placed before us.
I think Your Honour should very seriously consider the fact that all parties on this side of the house have suggested that they would like to support this motion and discuss the matter today. If they are prepared to do so, and since the house leader has said that the opposition have the privilege of picking the subjects to be discussed for the balance of this week, if all opposition parties wish to discuss this question for the balance of today then I do not think there is any conflict with the government's position.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, just a word with regard to the points made by the Minister of Public Works. The minister made three points. The first was to the effect that the motion did not deal with a housing shortage but with the action of the government in raising the interest rate. The mover of the motion made it perfectly clear that in his opinion there was a serious housing
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate shortage caused by the present high interest rates, and that the action of the government in further increasing interest rates would make that shortage even more serious than it is at the present time. In the first six months-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not agree that it is the actual motion that is put before the house that should be considered, not the speech of the proponent of the motion?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The actual motion refers to a housing shortage and the high interest rates which are aggravating the housing shortage.


George James McIlraith: No, it does not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the first nine months of this year housing starts dropped by 23 per cent because of high interest rates.


George James McIlraith: Because of low interest rates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We think the situation will be further aggravated by another increase in interest rates.
The minister's other statement to the effect that opposition groups had agreed to the departments which are to be dealt with between now and 5.30 on Friday afternoon leaves out the fact that when the parties in this house agreed to deal with the various departments, leaving out the Department of Finance, this agreement was reached before members of the opposition parties knew that the government intended to raise interest rates on N.H.A. mortgages. Certainly the government knew about it, and I think this comes pretty close to sharp practice. After the estimates of the minister had gone through and supply passed, the government slipped this in at the last moment last night after our having agreed on the departments to be dealt with.
The minister also said it is questionable whether or not we should set aside the business of the house to deal with this matter, and at the same time said that we might deal with it under the estimates of the Department of Finance. I agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the estimates have to be completed by 5.30 on Friday anyway. If we can discuss housing and the raising of the interest rate now, rather than under the estimates of the Department of Finance, what difference does it make? All these estimates have to be dealt with by 5.30 on Friday. We might just as well deal with the housing
November 23, 1966

N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate question now as leave it, as the government will probably want to do, until about 4.30 on Friday afternoon.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there has been sufficient indication of the desire of hon. members to discuss this matter to warrant proceeding with this motion at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because of the remarks of the Minister of Public Works, who rather lost himself in what might be called an obfuscatory jungle. That is not unusual for him. However, he did an exceptional job today when he argued that the members of this house in the opposition had agreed on the order of the estimates for the balance of this week until 5.30 on Friday. Certainly that is true, but this was before the government indulged in a very serious breach of its responsibilities to parliament by taking action that cannot be justified in any way. This action to increase the interest rate will simply add to the difficulties of the average Canadian. Apparently the government decided last night to make this statement after the opposition had agreed on the order of the estimates to come before the house. I suggest that this is action which can only be explained as sharp practice, if the hon. gentleman wants that expression to be used.


George James McIlraith: I rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: This is sharp political practice. It is an obvious attempt to delude the house and to deny its members the right to speak.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would not consider that an announcement dealing with the interest rates is one which, because of its obvious significance in the financial markets of the country, should only be made when the stock exchanges had closed? In light of that fact, does he agree he should not make accusations of sharp practice in the way he has? I do not feel that it is consistent with the responsibilities of a man holding the high office he does to make that kind of comment, when it should be obvious to anyone that there is no truth in the charge.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, every time the opposition points out where the government has gone wrong, or where it has endeavoured to deceive parliament, there is always an excuse. The announcement could have been made the night before. They must


have had this decision in mind for several days. The government had already informed the opposition, which had agreed, of the order of business, and then they brought this in. It is obvious that this is an endeavour to deny to the house the right to discuss this matter, and it is inexcusable.
Canadians everywhere were shocked last night by the announcement. Those in need of a house realize that they will be in a worse situation than ever before, all because Canadian interest rates are bound to those of the United States by agreement of this government. I say if ever there was a question of urgency, it is in this situation. I am afraid to argue this with Your Honour because the other day when I said I could not conceive of any other decision being given than the one I had in mind, Your Honour said you wished you could have the same certainty I had. I would argue the same way today but I am afraid to do so.
I do ask this: Why does the government not want this matter discussed? Are they afraid? If they have nothing to hide, why hide it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I rise I admit to hon. members that I am not too sure as to the decision to come to at this time. Excellent arguments have been made by hon. members supporting the motion presented by the hon. member for Danforth. On the other hand, hon. members know that by long-standing tradition and practice in this house, only in extreme circumstances is this kind of motion recognized by the house. I am not sure whether this is the type of situation which is so extreme that an exception should be made to the general rule, and the business to be considered by parliament be set aside in favour of a particular matter being brought to the attention of this assembly by an hon. member.
Two particular points or grievances have been brought to light in the course of the debate-because to some extent we have had a debate during the last hour, and in many ways that debate went beyond the very limited scope having to do with urgency. One of the grievances relates to the alleged general difficulties connected with the housing shortage.
I suggest to hon. members that this matter goes beyond the scope of the very limited motion proposed by the hon. member for Danforth. His motion deals with an increase to li per cent in the N.H.A. interest rate for loans on houses. That is the matter the hon. member wishes the house to discuss at this
November 23, 1968	COMMONS
time, and on that basis he moved his motion. The second grievance discussed by hon. member relates more properly to the announcement made last evening by the minister responsible for housing.
We have to decide whether something needs urgently to be debated, not whether something is an important national subject matter or whether it is in the national interest that there should be a debate on the announcement made by the minister last evening.
I concede that a debate before the announcement by the minister might have been important and should have been granted, but I sincerely and honestly fail to see how a debate for the next two hours before adjourning this afternoon would achieve more than has been achieved by the debate which has taken place during the last hour or so. I am afraid that at six o'clock, or when we adjourn, we would still be faced with the increase in interest rates to 7J per cent. Hon. members might voice their disagreement, but to my mind, this is the position which they have already taken and 1 would not think that speeches made in the course of a two-hour debate would add very much to the speeches made in the one-hour debate we have already had.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare argued that this matter could be discussed on the estimates of the Department of Finance. There is a very serious difficulty there. I do not say there has been any agreement, but there may be an understanding of what departments will be considered during the next three days. I do not think that this understanding is part of the order of the house and therefore it can be changed. I hope I am not wrong. I believe it can easily be changed by agreement between the party house leaders.
The hon. member for Greenwood misread the order paper, I believe, when he suggested that the subject under consideration now could not be discussed on the finance estimates. Item No. 1 is still before the house. If hon. members in the opposition want to bring forth this particular item, if they consider that it should be brought forth, I am sure there will be no difficulty. I assure hon. members that the subject of the increase in interest rates would be entirely relevant to the discussion of an item in the estimates of the Department of Finance.
For these reasons I regret very much that I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for Danforth.
N.H.A. Increase in Interest Rate
Mr. Scot! (Danforth): On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, naturally I accept your ruling but I would ask the house leader if he will not give an undertaking that time will be available to discuss this matter.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not regard that as proper at all. The opposition house leaders were called into a meeting to discuss the estimates and their wishes have been fully met. Until they indicate among themselves what order they wish, I would not be willing to make a change. But if they indicate through the normal established channels that they wish such a change to be made I will be glad to give expression to their wish in the house in the normal way.


Gilles Grégoire: I raise another question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
For some time, and again recently, there has been talk about an agreement between the house leaders which would be binding on the House of Commons.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that our privilege has been violated since, without our knowing it, such an agreement has been reached, and we state openly that we are not bound in any way by that agreement, since we have never heard about it and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and myself are hearing about it for the first time. Therefore, let no one charge us later with violating such an agreement, because we were not aware of it. We do not recognize it, because we were never told about it. We still have the privilege to discuss the estimates, all the more so since we are unaware that an agreement exists.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, about the matter raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), it should be clearly understood that the separatist movement is not officially recognized in the House of Commons and that-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that we could easily return to the business of the house.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 181-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or the
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1986
Motions for Papers
Centennial Commission or Expo '67 or any agency, branch or department of either and any other person, group or association since January 1, 1963, relating to the carving of a totem pole for display at Expo '67.
John B. Stewart: Notice of motion No. 181 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning interdepartment communications and documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 181 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John B. Stewart: Mr.* Speaker, would you be good enough to call notices of motions No. 166 and 183. I ask that notice of motion No. 72 be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND ANY CITIZEN OF THE CONSTITUENCY OF COMPTON-FRONTENAC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and any citizen of the constituency of Compton-Frontenac from January 1, 1963, to October 12, 1966.
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the motion is not acceptable in its present form. If, however, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac agrees to restrict his motion to the rural mail contracts and to the appointment of postmasters in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac during the period mentioned in the notice of motion, it would be acceptable, subject to the reservations respecting all correspondence marked personal and confidential.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I readily agree to withdraw this motion, but I shall prepare another one and submit it to the house.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
(Mr. Howard.]



CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS EXCHANGED WITH RESPECT TO &quot;YOUTH PARLIAMENT&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Caouelie:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and documents exchanged between the government of Canada, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and the Centennial Commission with respect to a "Youth Parliament" on the occasion of Centennial Year.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, any correspondence and documents exchanged between the government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Centennial Commission with respect to the Youth Parliament on the occasion of the Centennial Year could not be tabled because, under the rules governing the issuance of papers, departmental and interdepartmental correspondence is defined as privileged and confidential.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Secretary of State for her magnificent French in explaining that it is impossible for the government to issue a copy of correspondence between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Centennial Commission.
A while ago the Secretary of State informed me that the commission was to report within the next few days; therefore, I shall wait for the report. In the meantime, I withdraw this motion No. 183.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn. [English]



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a report on the present state of the negotiations between Air Canada and the machinists. Would the right hon. gentleman advise the house whether there is justification for the statement made by a union spokesman that the company is taking a stand "harder", and I quote that word, than at any time since the beginning of the strike? Also, would the Prime Minister say whether this harder stand has the full support of the cabinet as was stated, according to reports in the press, by the Air Canada chief negotiator, Charles Eyre, on his return to Montreal from Ottawa last evening?
November 23, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are going on and meetings have been taking place today. I know of nothing whatever which would justify the statement that the company has taken a harder position and certainly there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that the government would be behind any such harder position if, in fact, the company has taken it.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that negotiations have again broken down, although the Prime Minister does not like the words "broken down", is it not about time that the rights of the people of Canada were considered and that the government appointed a mediator? Why the delay in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The delay arises because negotiations are going on and I think the rights of the people of Canada are well protected when collective bargaining between the parties in dispute is allowed to proceed in the normal way. If and when those negotiations break down, the government has the responsibility for deciding what steps it should take.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister define what he means when he says "break down"? What has he in mind? A hopeless situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those were the right hon. gentleman's words, not mine. If and when negotiations are broken off finally, they will have broken down.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the meeting this morning lasted for only 20 minutes, that the meeting on Monday lasted for only two hours and that the meeting last Saturday lasted only one hour? May I also ask the Prime Minister whether it is his opinion that the appointment of a mediator, which is only an extension of conciliation, is in any sense an interference with collective bargaining? Does he not feel that this strike has already lasted long enough for the government to make sure that the negotiations are carried on with purpose instead of sporadically for a few minutes or for an hour or two?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not wish to get into a discussion with the hon. member about the nature of the negotiations. They are going on. If it becomes plain that they cannot reach any satisfactory or final result, then, as I have said, the government will discharge its responsibilities.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the answer given by the right hon. gentleman to the hon. member for York South, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister still considers that serious negotiations are going on when the parties meet for 12 or 20 minutes in one day, particularly when the whole situation constitutes a national emergency?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know where the hon. member got that figure-20 minutes in one day. The negotiations have not been closed. They have been taking place in the mornings and in the afternoons and as long as they are continuing there is in that sense the possibility of a successful result without government intervention, and the government should not intervene. When such a result cannot be achieved, then the government has certain responsibilities to discharge.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, not as government intervention but as a service provided under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, a mediator could not be appointed now so that he might bring about continuous sittings in these negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We shall be awaiting reports. Negotiations went on today. In the light of what has happened today and what happens in the immediate future we shall be able to determine what we should do as a government.


David Lewis: May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the president and other officials of Air Canada met with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport yesterday, and if the government takes the position that it must not intervene, does the right hon. gentleman think it proper for ministers of the crown to meet with the management side in the dispute, thus enabling a report to appear in the newspapers to the effect that the government was fully behind Air Canada's present position?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member's question is based on a newspaper report. I will look into that report immediately.


David Lewis: Today's Montreal Star, metro edition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 23, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the fact that during the first nine months of this year housing starts in urban areas dropped some 23 per cent, and in view of the fact that a second increase in the interest rates charged on N.H.A. loans will make it even more difficult for people to begin the building of houses, does the government intend to make larger sums of money available for direct loans than was anticipated prior to yesterday's announcement about the increased interest rate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious, I think, from the statement that I made in the house last night that the principal reason for the decline in housing starts this year was the lack of funds normally made available by conventional lenders. It is a fact, and this has been referred to on more than one occasion, that we should have over the next four or five years an average of about 170,000 new houses available. We had 166,000 last year, of which well over 100,000 starts arose out of loans made by conventional lenders.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At 9 per cent.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The reason we have not had as many in 1966, and this is based on careful investigation, is that the interest rate which has prevailed for the last few months has not been realistic. That is why the government announced the new policy last night after very serious consideration and after a final meeting yesterday on the subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, since it is necessary to have borrowers as well as lenders to have a housing program and since many people will feel unable to assume this additional burden in building houses, can the minister give a direct answer to this question? Does the government intend to enlarge its activities in direct lending to people who are unable to pay these exorbitant interest rates?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It certainly is not the government's present intention to make any change in this program during the year 1966. We are very hopeful, based on reports as to the liquidity of conventional lenders at the present time, that the announcement made last night will result in an appreciable increase in housing starts within the next few months.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
When he says that conventional lenders are withdrawing from the mortgage loan field, is the minister aware of the fact that Canadian chartered banks are now requesting permission to enter the field of mortgage loans in Canada and that they are also asking that their interest rate be increased to 7 per cent and not 7-J per cent?
Is the minister aware of the fact that chartered banks will eventually become conventional lenders?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Parliament has not yet dealt with that matter. The question is still academic.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister report at an early date on the full extent of the serious financial crisis now indicated by the government in the announcement by the Minister of Labour last night, which provides for an increase in the N.H.A. interest rate to 7J per cent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister will not make such a report to the House of Commons will he instruct the Minister of Finance to prepare such a report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. friend's question was of the type, "When did you stop beating your wife."


Edward Nasserden: I ask the Prime Minister to stop this crisis.
November 23, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase in the interest rate to 7J per cent on N.H.A. loans to new home builders, will the minister seriously consider removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials in order to alleviate the burden on prospective home owners?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's intention to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials because we would just have to raise some other taxes to take its place, and I do not think this would be any more acceptable than the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the report made yesterday by the United States Senate commerce committee that some 500,000 cars have been produced this year and last year with potential defects, can the minister say whether any of those cars reached Canada through importation and whether the same defects are found in cars manufactured in Canada under the same brand name?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, there have been defects discovered in cars manufactured in the United States and imported into Canada and there have also been some defects discovered in cars manufactured in Canada for delivery both domestically and for export. In this country the motorcar manufacturers follow the same re-examination and recall procedures that are carried on in the United States. I am glad to say that in Canada in respect of the 1967 models occasions for recall in relation to Canadian manufactured cars have been minimal.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there is a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South): No, I
am rising on a question of privilege with respect to the answer the minister has given the house about Canadian manufactured automobiles. If he has time after leaving the house, I will prove to him that he is entirely wrong in that statement and he should check it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday I asked him a question concerning the commanding officer of the 9th engineer squadron, at Noranda, Mr. Stanley Nudds, who is said to have insulted the French Canadians living in northwestern Quebec. Has the minister since inquired into the matter?

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): No, Mr. Speaker. A full report has been asked for but I am advised it may take several days before it is received.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Will the minister table the report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General if he will have an investigation made into allegations that have appeared in several press reports, in particular in the Vancouver Sun, to the effect that United States service police in civilian clothes and carrying warrants are making the rounds of various places in Vancouver that the minister and I do not frequent, looking for United States armed forces deserters, and that to all outward appearances there were no members of the R.C.M.P. accompanying these individuals? This is a serious matter and one

November 23, 1986
Inquiries of the Ministry that should be looked into. We should not have police officers from a foreign country wandering around in our country trying to find malefactors from their country.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I would be pleased to look into. I appreciate the importance of the matter raised and it may be one I will wish to discuss with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I understand that the final national centennial conference scheduled for Edmonton next Monday and Tuesday has been cancelled because people from several provinces could not secure air transportation in order to get there. Can the Secretary of State say when the conference will be rescheduled, and is the government now prepared to admit that the air strike is reaching emergency proportions when such important conferences involving our centennial are cancelled or washed out?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the government denies the fact that Air Canada services not being available is a matter of grave concern and considerable inconvenience in many places. But it does not appear to me to be the role of the government to be a strikebreaker by providing alternative forms of conveyance. I cannot tell the house when this conference will be rescheduled. Under the terms of the legislation it is supposed to meet twice a year. It has already met once. The rescheduling depends on the availability of individual members of the conference, who are volunteers, and potential speakers.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a fairly detailed question on the basis that if we do not act within three or four days a major opportunity will be lost to correct the situation. It has just been announced in the United States by the

department of health, education and welfare that, because of the serious problem of air pollution, starting in 1968 all new cars sold in the United States must be equipped with antifume devices. Will similar regulations apply in Canada to all new cars sold in 1968?


Mr. Speaker:: I take the hon. member's word that it is a matter that has to be decided immediately.


William Heward Grafftey: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not act soon we will have lost the opportunity to have these regulations applied in Canada that are going to be applied in the United States with reference to air pollution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of my hon. friend's question is now under active consideration.


William Heward Grafftey: Will the minister assure the house that the active consideration can quickly be translated into action so that we will have in Canada the same protection United States citizens will have in 1968? What is there to consider?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is the type of question I like to address to the minister. In view of the fact that the minister's department is placing advertisements in the newspapers of Wales outlining the excellent opportunities in Canada for a wide range of professions, trades and skills, and in view of the present shortage of skilled miners in Canada, can the minister explain why these advertisements do not mention the opportunities in Canada for skilled miners?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is one which should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
November 23, 1966

Following a recommendation made by the Economic Council in its last report to the effect that it is urgent in Canada to define the duties and responsibilities of governments, will the present government finally agree to set up a parliamentary joint committee on fiscal distribution and constitutional reforms?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention at the present time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that some cream shippers who are eligible for butterfat subsidy payments have as yet received no cheques-I am not implying that this is the fault of the department-and that those who have received them received no statement with their cheques, would the government now seriously consider having the local creameries make the payments on behalf of the government and incorporate these payments in the regular cheques?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



WHEAT-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING INCREASE IN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and in his absence I think it might be taken as notice. In view of the remarks of the minister in Saskatoon yesterday to the effect that there will shortly be an increase in international wheat prices and in view of the minister's statement last week to the effect that negotiations were going on concerning price increases, would the minister inform the house at the earliest opportunity whether these negotiations are being carried on with (a) the GATT cereal committee, (b) the international wheat council or (c) the United States government which has always been opposed to increases?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY IN CAPE BRETON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a wire from the coal industry and the Glace Bay Board of Trade and, if so, has he discussed it with other members of his cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have received a number of wires. I am not sure whether I have received this one but I will look into the matter.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister's word good and is he going to deliver in respect of the commitment made concerning the Nova Scotia coal industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it has always been the contention in this country that when a minister of the crown speaks, he speaks for the government, unless he indicates otherwise. On October 5, 1965, the then minister of labour, now minister of National Health and Welfare, made a definite commitment to the mining industry in Cape Breton. I have been denied the privilege of asking questions of this same minister who said that the Minister of Finance should answer for him. This substantiates my right to ask the question. He indicates that the Minister of Finance should answer for him, and hon. members are denied the opportunity to ask him questions about a commitment he made in respect of the Nova Scotia coal industry. He made that commitment and the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works supported it. Wires and letters continue to come in every day and they are completely ignored. This promise was made on October 5, 1965 and referred to at that time as an accomplished fact. Now the Minister of National Health and Welfare hides behind the ruling of the Chair and says he is not responsible. He certainly is.

November 23, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Cape Breton South. I apologize to my hon. friend from Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are four of us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At no time have I refused to answer any questions which have been directed to me within my capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare or previously as minister of labour. I am quite prepared to answer any question which the rules will permit me to answer. The fact is that Your Honour has ruled that under the rules of the house it is impossible for me to reply to these questions. I wish to make it perfectly clear that if there is any disability in so far as answers are concerned it is not one I wish but one which is imposed upon me by the ruling of the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the house give unanimous consent to the minister to come out from behind the rules and answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bow River.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was going to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but perhaps his parliamentary secretary would take it as notice. On November 21 the hon. member for Calgary North and myself raised the matter of the tragic death of five children on the Indian reserve at Gleichen and asked whether the minister would look into the situation. Will the minister look into the question of whether the serious alcoholism problem which is developing on the reservation may have been the cause of this tragedy?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take that question as notice.



TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE OPERATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who promised an answer last

Friday. Could the minister give us an explanation of why telephone operators with up to 20 years service on behalf of this house were replaced in the last week because they speak only French or English?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter does not fall within my immediate responsibility but I shall be glad to look into it for my hon. friend.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister say when he intends to introduce the amendments to the Canada Labour Code which would end the exclusion of longshoremen from complete coverage for statutory holidays?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member noted the proceedings in the Senate he would have found that a bill which the government feels will accomplish the objective he has in mind was introduced in the Senate and given third reading yesterday and it should be before this house later today.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, I knew that had taken place in the other place but I am anxious to know what action the minister is taking here. Can the minister bring us up to date now in respect of the situation at the west coast ports where I understand the longshoremen have returned to work but are still anxious to start negotiations with their employers on the issue of the status of the foremen?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am happy to say that the great majority of the longshoremen returned to work yesterday. There are now some difficulties because of the fact that there is a shortage in the supervisory group, of foremen and others. With regard to the first part of the question, I might say that this matter does not come within the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. This is a matter for negotiation between an employer and a group of employees who have not received certification under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Mr. T. S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can
November 23, 1966

the minister tell us whether the shipping federation has given any indication of a willingness to sit down and discuss this matter with its employees?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot give any information on that subject. I imagine that the employees themselves have exchanged some words with the employers in this regard, but I have no information.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
ARDA-PROGRAM IN MANITOBA On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Forestry I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has he received any formal complaints from the government of Manitoba alleging that the federal government is now attempting to disengage itself from the multimillion dollar commitment for cost sharing under the ARDA program in that province and is thereby dislocating Manitoba's provincial budgeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall receiving any such communication although I should like to check. I believe there is a delegation coming here from Manitoba this week to discuss this matter with the federal government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. Can he assure the house that he will allow a debate on Bill No. C-170 as soon as the members of the joint committee on public service have completed consideration of the bill?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. If it were addressed to the minister charged with this responsibility, the President of the Treasury Board, perhaps he could be helpful.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard) put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who
Inquiries of the Ministry said that this was not his responsibility and that the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) could probably give the requested information.
Is the minister in a position to give an answer to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do that. There are three bills before the committee and when they have been dealt with they will be given very high priority in this house by the government. I was not sure of the number to which the hon. member referred but I presume he meant Bill No. 170 which deals with civil service collective bargaining.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and it arises out of a news release regarding civil servants' pay. What is the precise appropriate standard of competence in French and English which will give one bilingual federal civil servant a 7 per cent raise vis-a-vis another as a result of the use of only 10 per cent of his time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member does not expect that type of question to be answered during the question period.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could take it as notice and supply this information in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is in order.

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


The Chairman:: We are considering the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, vote No. 1, is to be found at page 52 of the blue book.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
1. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $110,643,000.
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
Mr. Mclniosh:: Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to rise at this time during our consideration of the hon. lady's estimates because of a statement I made on March 9, 1966 which is to be found at page 2459 of Hansard for that day. At that time I said in part.
Before the estimates of the C.B.C. come before us next time, I want to say that I am going to move a motion that they be reduced to one dollar.
I intend to move such a motion later this day.
Before I go into the subject I wish to discuss, service to the remote areas of Canada, let me point out the weakness of dealing with estimates in this manner. The government house leader said earlier today that dealing with estimates is one of the most important pieces of business we can perform in this house. The people of Canada know that one of the prime responsibilities of the opposition is to scrutinize these estimates in a very meticulous manner. Under the new provisional rules we are not able to do that.
At a meeting yesterday of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts I attempted to put my position to the officials of the C.B.C. I see those officials now sitting in the gallery and I apologize to them because they will have to sit and listen to me say the same things over again. This is a very important matter.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I was in the house last night until the adjournment motion and I heard the introduction of the order proposed by the Minister of Public Works. He is recorded in Hansard at pages 10223 and 10224 as having said:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder, before you call the adjournment motion, if I might deal with one matter. Pursuant to the provisions of the provisional standing order dealing with consideration of supply and estimates, the house leaders have discussed the requirements of that order and we have reached a consensus. I move:
"That on Friday, November 25, 1966, at 5.30 p.m., every question necessary to dispose of all outstanding main and supplementary estimates tabled in this session, and thereafter all subsequent proceedings leading to the passage of the appropriation bill based thereon shall be forthwith disposed of without amendment or debate, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing order."
I should like to ask the house leader whether the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are now being withdrawn from the committee of which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and I are members? That committee is at present discussing these estimates and at 9.30 tomorrow morning
[The Chairman.]
the general manager and president of the C.B.C. are to appear. Are these estimates to be withdrawn without any notice to the committee?


George James McIlraith: I shall be glad to answer the question. As far as I know the broadcasting committee at the moment has no business before it. A motion referring estimates to a standing committee always takes the form of referring certain estimates saving always the right of the committee of supply to consider them. These estimates were withdrawn by the motion of last night but even without that withdrawal they could be dealt with here. It is still my view that they are not now before the committee although I hesitate to give a legal opinion on a subject of this kind. Let me hasten to add that there is a motion on the order paper to refer the white paper on broadcasting to that committee. When that motion has been dealt with the committee will be able to carry on its work in an uninterrupted way. That committee will have full authority, beyond any shadow of doubt, to carry on a full examination into the affairs of the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. Whenever this house makes that reference to the committee it will be in a position to carry out that examination.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the estimates of the C.B.C. have been withdrawn from the committee by any action taken last night. If that were so why would the second paragraph of the order passed last night indicate that the matter has to be voted on at 5.30 on Friday? It reads as follows:
2. In the event that any items of these estimates are unreported by any standing committee, such items shall be deemed to have been reported by such standing committee and to stand referred to the committee of supply, and any motion referring such items to any such committee shall be rescinded and the order discharged.
I intended to question the president and general manager of the C.B.C. at the meeting of the broadcasting committee tomorrow. I cannot do it in the House of Commons. The committee met on Thursday of last week and on Tuesday of this week. Tomorrow it is to meet again. I do not believe the estimates of the C.B.C. should be discussed at this time because they have not been withdrawn from the committee.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the hon. member for York-Humber and I would like to endorse his remarks with regard to the method in which
November 23, 1966

business is carried on in the house. I had hoped to receive some answers from the president of the C.B.C. to questions which I put to him yesterday. I say again that the provisional rules under which we are working at the present time make a mockery of our efforts to get to the bottom of situations which we wish to discuss in detail in committee because, as has been said in the house today, on Friday the guillotine will fall on all estimates regardless of whether or not they are now being considered in a committee. I am sure there are many others like me who would like to speak not only on the estimates of the C.B.C. but on the estimates of other departments which have not been passed by the house. The reason I rise at this time is that I firmly believe that the C.B.C. is not carrying out the intention of parliament.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. Will you make a ruling on whether the C.B.C. estimates are before the committee of supply at this time?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is difficult for the chairman to make a ruling on something that has been agreed to by the different parties in the house. It is my understanding that the motion was made an order of the house last evening and was agreed to. It was said by the Minister of Public Works that it was agreed that the estimates would be withdrawn from the standing committees and again referred to the committee of supply on the passing of this motion. If my understanding is not correct, I will have to refer the hon. member to the statement made by the minister.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The Minister of Public Works stated that he was not too certain and that he could not give a legal opinion on the question I raised.


George James McIlraith: I only said that about the last of the several points raised by the hon. member. It is clear that the estimates have been returned to the committee of supply. What the hon. member referred to as being said by me dealt with the latter part of his argument.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that it is anticipated the standing committee on broadcasting will very shortly be charged with another item of business, the white paper on broadcasting, a motion to this effect having been on the order paper for some time. At that time my hon. friends will have full opportunity to recall any witnesses they choose
Supply-C.B.C.
and to continue the questioning they have started.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, we may be dealing with the white paper at some future date in the committee on broadcasting but the withdrawal of the estimates fom the committee at this time will prevent us from getting a breakdown of the vote, which is my present concern. I point out to the house that the information contained in the blue book in regard to the C.B.C. is very vague and means very little to most of us who are on the committee if we are not given the opportunity to ask some questions of the officials. It is said about vote 1 on page 53:
Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service.
I do not think for one moment that anyone in the house or any Canadian, with the exception of those who are in the C.B.C., knows what those responsibilities are. In my attempt to find out what they are I referred to back issues of Hansard to discover what was said at the time the C.B.C. was first established.
I should like to do what I did yesterday in committee, namely, ask questions in regard to vote 1. My first question is: What are the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service? I do not think the minister can answer this question, for reasons which I will state later.
The second question which I should like to ask the president of the C.B.C. is whether a list of priorities has been established or ever been made known to parliament or to the Canadian public. As I said before, I do not believe the C.B.C. or its officials are carrying out the intent of parliament, particularly with regard to people in remote areas where it appears that the C.B.C. is only giving lip service to the initial responsibilities with which it was charged.
I have tried to study the white paper on broadcasting to which the minister referred a few moments ago. On page 15 of the white paper there appears a section entitled: "The Mandate Of The Corporation". I will read the first paragraph of that section:
Under the present Broadcasting Act, responsibility is assigned to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the operation of a national broadcasting service. The interpretation of this phrase has been left largely to the corporation itself-
I think the word "largely" should be changed to "solely". It continues further:
-and it has fulfilled its prime responsibility to provide broadcasting services to the Canadian

November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
people as a whole in a manner that is altogether praiseworthy.
What really concerns me is the word "fulfilled". Possibly I should not refer to another debate which took place in the house but I should like to mention that in the discussion on a defence issue not long ago reference was made to the white paper on defence and the term "united services" was used. That is a very broad term which can mean anything but to me it certainly does not mean unification. I have the same doubts about the word "fulfilled" which is used in this paragraph.
I wish to draw the minister's attention to the 1965 report of the committee on broadcasting where the following statement appears:
The most pressing need, that which deserves priority in the plans for expansion of the Canadian radio-television system, is the extension of service to all those parts of Canada which have none.
Furthermore, on page 126 of the Fowler report the following recommendation is made:
We recommend:
That the mandate of the public broadcasting agency should be clearly stated and defined as fully as possible by legislation, and should be expanded and specifically explained in a white paper on broadcasting policy.
This recommendation of the Fowler commission does not appear in the white paper on broadcasting. It is stated in the white paper that the minister to whom the C.B.C. is responsible should define the responsibilities of the corporation. These responsibilities are not defined in the white paper nor can they be found anywhere else. I wonder what this large sum of money comprises. We cannot get a breakdown of the $108 million. I believe the minister will agree with me that if that sum is broken down in relation to the number of homes in Canada we will find that about 4.5 million homes are each paying roughly $20 a year to the C.B.C. What are they getting in return? I am speaking for those people who live in remote areas of Canada and who are not getting the services of the C.B.C. which they were initially supposed to receive.
I would also like to refer to what the minister has said on former occasions in the house and particularly in March of this year. On March 8 of this year the minister said, as found on page 2418 of Hansard:
-the question of the extension of the services provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, first of all to parts of Canada not yet reached by any service. I fully agree, as I am sure every hon. member does, that it should be extended to such regions as quickly as is humanly possible, if it is humanly possible.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As far as I am concerned those last words have only got me into a lot of trouble in my constituency. My constituency covers a large area of southwest Saskatchewan where it is humanly possible to service these people. Although there may only be a few members of the house who have the same problems I have with C.B.C. service to remote areas, I assure the house that the problems are serious. The members to whom I refer are not confined to one part of the house; they are members from all parties. I hope that those members who have these problems will support me in the motion I intend to move in a few moments.
I ask those who do not have this problem to consider the fact that their constituents do receive C.B.C. service. The people I am talking about are helping to pay for that service. I suppose it is unconstitutional to allow these people an allowance free of income tax because they do not receive this service, or will not receive it, but it does seem to me very unfair that they should pay $20 a home and can never expect to receive service.
The argument was made yesterday that it is nothing new not to receive service of one kind or another. Reference was made to roads and hospitals in rural areas. However, I suggest this argument does not hold water. These people can have roads if they wish to pay for them and they can also have hospitals. But in the case of C.B.C. service there are government and C.B.C. restrictions which prevent provision of this service so that even if these people wished to pay for it they could not receive it.
I should like to remind the minister of that part of her remarks in which she said service would be provided if humanly possible. I firmly believe that the minister is sincere in this statement. However, I know that her hands are tied under the act, and it was this statement that led me to look at the act.
The minister further said on March 8, as reported at page 2418 of Hansard:
I share with all hon. members who have spoken a desire to see as quickly as practicable the extension of service to every Canadian in Canada who can receive it.
Again I think she is sincere.
At page 2418 of Hansard she is reported as having said:
-I am told that we cannot hope under present technological advances to reach 100 per cent of the homes of Canada.
November 23, 1966



We fully understand that it is technically impossible to provide television service for certain homes which are situated at the top of a mountain or in a valley or in between two mountains or in some area with minerals in the ground preventing the reception of the signal. I do not know the technological problems but I know there are difficulties of reception in certain areas. But I am not referring to such areas. I am referring to areas where it is humanly possible to receive television signals, and provision of service may be just a matter of dollars and cents.
Another hon. member who is going to speak on these estimates will draw to the attention of the committee the fact that we do not believe that the officials of the C.B.C. have been fair in the formula they have used to give priority to remote areas which will be serviced. I will not delve into this argument at this moment because the hon. member for Churchill, who so ably put the position on Hansard before, will repeat his arguments, to which I give my support. The figures used by the C.B.C. to show how much it will cost to give these areas television service are not fair.
I also wish the committee to remember that according to this year's estimates all fiomes in Canada will pay over $26 per home for C.B.C. service. The figures used by the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to show what it will cost to put these satellites, or whatever they are called, into operation vary from $5 to $15. The figure we have been using is $20 a home, and we are dealing with over $100 million. There are about four and a half million homes with an average of four people to each home. So that within two years the cost of a satellite or the extension of some station's service would be paid for.
If it is a question of money, Mr. Chairman, the officials of the corporation certainly have no compunction about coming to parliament and asking for additional money. We have not been able to scrutinize the estimates sufficiently to ask the officials how much it will cost in dollars and cents to do this. The vote is not broken down in any way and I do not see in any summary a breakdown of the figures. This is one of the values of sending these estimates to committee, but under the provisional rules the committee does not work as well as it should. With the shortage of time here it is impossible for us to ask the minister to get this information for us. The officials are not members of the house so we cannot ask them.
Supply-C.B.C.
In previous remarks in the house the minister, to my satisfaction, documented briefly the intent of parliament vis-a-vis the C.B.C. over the past 25 or 30 years that the corporation has been in operation. As reported at page 2454 of Hansard for March 9 she said:
-it is not my place to tell the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where they should extend service.
She implies that by law it is the responsibility of the corporation to determine priorities. In my view it has not yet determined priorities. However, as I said before, parliament has made known its intention and I believe the original intention of parliament was that the C.B.C. should provide service to all Canadians. Certainly that should be its major priority before extending, and duplicating service in areas already served.
I further suggest that perhaps all parts of Canada should have service before the C.B.C. even enters the field of colour television. We are not objecting to the entry into the field of colour television and keeping up with progress, but for the life of me I cannot understand why the program of the corporation in servicing remote areas has not been more extensive.
According to a recent report of the proceedings of the broadcasting committee the minister said that the most pressing need, that which deserved priority in the plans for expansion of the Canadian radio-television system, is the extension of service to all those parts of Canada which have none. I contend that it was the original intention of parliament that the C.B.C. should service all parts of Canada it is humanly possible to service.
C.B.C. applications for licences in larger centres where there is already an alternative service have unnecessarily delayed extension of service to more remote areas. May I refer to the action of the C.B.C. in Edmonton where private operations already exist. Yet the C.B.C. set up another station. I also refer to the situation in Saskatoon where the station in operation is a C.T.V. affiliate. That area has adequate coverage, at least until the remote areas of the province are given service.
C.B.C. capital expenditure on properties and accommodation in large centres has also delayed unnecessarily the servicing of areas which are entitled to be serviced. After many years of saying that it did not feel justified in requesting a special grant from parliament to complete the job of servicing the remote areas that can be serviced, the C.B.C. has finally in its last two annual reports stated that such a grant would be very helpful.

November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
My question is: Why has it not requested this special grant? We cannot ask the minister because this vote is not broken down. We do not know what the $108 million is for, whether for salaries, productions or capital expenditures. We do not know whether there is anything in this vote to pay for the servicing of the remote areas to which I have referred. If the corporation has requested a special grant, what has been the attitude of the government toward this request? Has the government refused the C.B.C. a grant for the purpose of servicing remote areas, even if granting the request meant a higher per capita cost in some areas than others? I think we have a right to discuss this subject, and I hope the hon. member for Churchill will say more about this matter with particular reference to what we request the C.B.C. to do.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
On page 123 of the Fowler report, under the heading of "The C.B.C. Mandate", we find one or two statements I wish to quote. The first one is:
-the C.B.C. has the primary responsibility tor providing excellent broadcasting services to the Canadian people.
Another statement is:
As the recipient of large sums of public money, it can do many things that the private broadcasters cannot reasonably be expected to do.
Again, we see this statement:
If the interpretation-
Here they are referring to section 25 of the act:
-has failed to conform to the wishes of parliament, it is clear where the responsibility rests.
I think the responsibility rests with parliament. It may not rest so much on the minister or the government but it is time parliament told the C.B.C. what to do and what is expected. We have asked too few questions in the past about the corporation and it may be necessary-I shall be glad to hear arguments against this-to tell the corporation what we consider to be its priorities.
In the latest version the mandate that the C.B.C. conceives it has received from parliament is in part that Canadians who live in remote or heavily populated areas should be as adequately and equitably served as possible by the national system. I do not believe that the purpose of this vote is to set up the C.B.C. in competition with private enterprise but rather to enable it to service those areas where it is not financially sound for private broadcasters to inaugurate a service. There

may be some argument about that last statement.
My thinking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that it ought to provide service to those areas of Canada where it is financially impossible for private broadcasters to operate at a profit. The corporation should operate in the way the post office operates. The post office does not necessarily make a profit. It must give service to all people and I think the people are willing to pay in taxation for any deficit it incurs. The same principle should apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. All people, most of all those in remote areas, should have C.B.C. service.
An argument could be made that it is more important to provide C.B.C. service to remote areas than to urban centres because in urban centres there are many other forms of entertainment. In western Canada particularly we want to keep the young people on the farms producing the world's food, and to meet our responsibility to keep these young people on the farm they should be entertained, and the government of Canada should be prepared to pay for it. The people in remote areas are paying in this vote for services to all Canadians, although those services are not extended to remote areas. In my opinion the remote areas should be a primary responsibility before other areas. Certainly the remote areas should be considered before services in other areas are duplicated.
Perhaps I have spoken too long. Before sitting down I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill:
That Vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be reduced by the sum of $107,942,999.00.


The Deputy Chairman:: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, listening to the last speaker reminded me of the popular song, "How can you keep them down on the farm". According to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, we can do it by providing people with television service. Like the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek I regret the circumstance that has brought these estimates from the broadcasting committee back to the house. We had expected to have another meeting with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation officials tomorrow, having had one yesterday. I know that the committee spent a good deal of time this spring on the C.B.C., but that was on the "Seven Days" controversy in which there was a good deal of interest. I do not think one could have
November 23, 1966

expected the committee to discuss the estimates in detail at that time. I also point out that the committee has not yet discussed the estimates of the Board of Broadcast Governors or of the National Film Board. It seems to me that we should be able to do the work of the house and committees in a better way. Here we are faced with the end of the estimates and the estimates of the B.B.G. and the National Film Board have not been examined.
The house leader and the minister have assured us that the white paper on broadcasting will be referred to the committee. I hope this is very soon. It seems to me that unless it is referred to it in the very near future there will be no value in sending it to the committee. I hope the government will be interested in the recommendations of the committee on the white paper and I imagine that if the government has not already done so it is thinking of preparing legislation. Unless the committee deals with the subject soon, it cannot be of help in that regard.
I had an opportunity to question the president of the corporation in committee yesterday but I had not finished as I yielded to other members who wanted to put questions also. Had we resumed our meetings tomorrow we should have gone into some matters we wanted to raise. I should have liked to hear a progress report on the recommendations made by the broadcasting committee last summer. I should have liked to hear about the recommendations made by Mr. Stuart Keate regarding the administrative structure and the recommendation that vice presidents be appointed to be in charge of production in Toronto and Montreal. I know there is great difficulty in finding the right type of person to fulfil the requirements suggested by Mr. Keate and the committee, but I hope we shall hear something soon from the corporation or from the minister on that aspect.
The question of the extension of national coverage raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is very important. I listened with great interest to his remarks in committee yesterday. What he said was dealt with in part in the annual report of the corporation for 1965-66. On page 75 of that report under the heading "C.B.C. Network Expansion" we have this statement:
Each year the C.B.C. extends its network service to still more people and this year spent approximately $3,500,000 in network extension, or about 25 per cent of its capital budget.
The corporation regularly reviews its lists of communities lacking broadcast service in the light of a growing and mobile population, and estimates
Supply-C.B.C.
the costs of serving them on a priority basis, taking into account per capita costs modified by language and geographic distribution. Of the communities of 2,000 or more without television service, some 72 would tend to fall within the direct responsibility of the corporation while the C.B.C. is holding discussions with affiliates about another 34 communities and possible affiliate plans for covering them. In radio there are 78 communities of 500 or more people not receiving C.B.C. national network daytime radio service.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I confess I was reasonably satisfied with the answer given by the officials of the corporation that they did not have sufficient funds to enable them to extend coverage throughout Canada at one time. In connection with the demands for more complete coverage, the question has been asked: why go ahead with colour television before everyone is able to receive a basic radio and television service? Of course, there are other factors which must be considered-reception of colour transmissions from the United States, competition from commercial television and so on.
I am fairly impressed by the extension of television coverage which has already been achieved. In my own province, for example, there are 48 low-power transmitters for the radio network and 6 for television. I realize there are areas of British Columbia, northern Ontario and Saskatchewan, as the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has told us, which still need service. Again, this is a matter of funds. I asked the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek in committee whether he would be prepared to vote additional moneys so that the task of extending coverage might be completed nationally and, to his credit, he said yes.
There is another matter of some importance which has to do with the corporation's budget. A confrere of the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was questioning officials of the corporation about the time given to programs having Canadian content and to Canadian public affairs programs in the prime viewing period on television from eight o'clock to ten o'clock in the evening. The officials of the corporation said they would like to carry more but were required to derive an important part of their funds from commercial revenue. So I suggest we are faced again with the question: how much money is parliament willing to vote toward the operation of the C.B.C.?
Each year the total amount of the corporation's budget is mentioned to us, about $110 million for the current fiscal year, as though this were an outlandish sum. I do not think it

November 23. 1366
Supply-C.B.C.
is at all. My hon. friend from New Westminster put a series of questions on the order paper last year asking the cost per capita per day of the corporation's services. It amounted to about one cent per person. This is not a very large amount and I suggest it should not seem to be very much to members of parliament who are willing to acquiesce in the spending of $11 million for the repair of a pile of junk such as the Bonaventure. We are not spending a very great amount in comparison with the service we are getting. If we want additional service and want it quickly, it is up to the government to ask parliament to vote the additional money required.
One of the requests which the corporation has made over the years is that those responsible for budgeting should be able to plan ahead for periods longer than one year. This has been recommended by the committee on broadcasting and the government has stated in its white paper that it favours this idea. I believe it is a good one. However, it is the amount granted each year that will determine the extent of the service we get in this country. I do not disagree with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that there are parts of Canada still lacking service after all these years. But again it seems to me that the corporation is already doing good work in extending its services each year and that if we want the job done faster it is up to us to make the money available. It is up to the government to ask us to vote the necessary sums.
There are other matters connected with broadcasting to which I shall refer at this time because there will be no further opportunity this year. The Board of Broadcast Governors recently held hearings in connection with the future operation of ultra high frequency television transmission and the possible allocation of these frequencies. This is a subject of great importance. It brings us to the question of educational television programs, one which has not received, in Canada, the attention it deserves. The C.B.C. and the private stations have been devoting a certain amount of time in co-operation with the provincial authorities to the carrying of educational television broadcasting but the total time allotted to these broadcasts has been extremely limited. Space has to be found within the daily programs and the hours of transmission are not always those most convenient to the school authorities.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I suggest that we have not gone nearly far enough in Canada in using the valuable tool

of television for educational purposes. We have certainly not gone as far in its use as the United States. The future should see a great improvement in this field if we can use the ultra high frequency television band for this purpose.
In this connection a number of questions arise. Some time ago I asked the government whether it would give priority to educational outlets in the allocation of ultra high frequency television channels. As recorded at page 9362 of Hansard for Monday, October 31, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State replied to me in part as follows:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. member will agree with me, the government will have to wait until the B.B.G. makes a ruling before it can decide on this matter. The hon. member is fully aware that the B.B.G. does not make its decisions on the spot and that sometimes we get the reports two or three weeks after the hearings.
I do not at all agree with that reply. The government has to set the frame of reference within which the B.B.G. operates, and I had hoped that in the white paper which the government issued it would have stated clearly that the educational authorities woud have prior rights when the allocation of u.h.f. channels is made. At the present time the C.B.C. is quite well served with channels, and also the private broadcasters. It is educational television which has gone short in the past and we have to rectify this situation in the future. Before a new broadcasting bill is introduced I hope this matter will be considered by the minister and that we will hear some declaration from the government that there will be priority for educational services on u.h.f. bands.
There is another matter related to this question. At a recent hearing of the B.B.G. a group headed by Kenneth Soble made an application for a third television broadcasting network in Canada. At the moment I do not want to go into the merits of whether we can afford a third network. That is quite a debatable point in itself. But this group suggested that a certain number of satellites be used, not satellite stations but satellites in air space for broadcasting purposes. They suggested two initially and perhaps four ultimately.
I want to find out more about this proposal, but at the moment I understand it is possible to have only a certain number of satellites in operation and that the United States is already using a number of them. What plans do we in Canada have to get satellites up there so that we will have a certain number that belong to us and over which we have control? If
November 23, 1966

we wait very long it seems to me the United States will pre-empt the skies and then we will have to make arrangements with that country if we want to use their satellites.
There is another question related to the use of u.h.f. channels in broadcasting. It is one which I have raised in the house a couple of times and it deals with receiving sets. I asked the government whether it had the authority to require manufacturers of television sets to include in all new sets manufactured in Canada a u.h.f. band receiver. Obviously one cannot receive u.h.f. broadcasts if one does not have a television set built for that purpose.
Two years ago the United States Congress passed a law to that effect, and at present in the United States a certain number of u.h.f. stations are in operation. It seems to me only reasonable that television set manufacturers in Canada should be required from now on to include this type of band in sets so that we will be ready for the day when u.h.f. broadcasting begins in Canada. On November 21 question No. 2,112 on the order paper, standing in my name, was answered. It read as follows:
Does the federal government, the Board of Broadcast Governors, or any other federal agency, have the power to require manufacturers of television receiving sets in Canada to include an ultra high frequency band on each unit?
The answer was no. I question this very much because I have checked some legal authorities on the matter and found that on one occasion the Privy Council made a decision that radio receiving sets come within federal jurisdiction. This decision was made in 1931 and nothing has happened since to upset it. I suggest that the government should have another look at that matter.
I wish to say one final word about the B.B.G. hearings. Parliament cannot tell the B.B.G. what to do in any particular situation. Parliament lays down certain rules but individual applications are ruled upon by the board. However, members of this house can express their views. A great many people are disturbed about one application which is before the B.B.G. at the present time. It is being made by a group of broadcasters in Barrie, Ontario, who want to relocate their broadcasting facilities closer to the Toronto area, using channel 3.
It has been said before, and my colleagues and I agree, that this type of application should not be allowed, that if there is to be an additional channel made available in the Toronto metropolitan area all persons who
Supply-C.B.C.
have made applications in the past and others should have an opportunity to apply, and that this Barrie group should not be allowed by the back door to get into the very profitable metropolitan Toronto market simply by moving a transmitter and keeping the same channel. If this were allowed it would go against any fair principle applied to the allocation of television channels.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, this year
C.B.C. will spend the fantastic sum of $113,484,000, which represents a $14 million increase apparently due to colour television being introduced across the country, particularly in the large cities, whereas certain areas are still without conventional black and white television service.
Here, in this house, we have been asking the minister for four years to extend the French television network to Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia. After four years of repeated pleading, we have yet to witness a satisfactory step in that direction.


Robert William Prittie: This will get under way in September, 1967.


David Réal Caouette: In 1967, yes, but this is not yet settled.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the hon. minister, as well as the B.B.G. and the C.B.C., have considered the possibility of extending this service only to those French Canadian populations in British Columbia numbering between 100 and 125 thousand. This concerns the country as a whole. However, as concerns our province of Quebec, my colleague the member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) has also been urging for four years extension of the French television network to the northern region, namely Chibougamau-Chapais. And that area is still without the service. The present population of Chibougamau-Chapais is over 15,000 and the residents of those areas have to pay to be connected to a television cable; $200 for the hook-up, plus $8 a month for the use of the cable, which amounts to $96 a year, over and above the $200 installation fee.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind this is highly irregular, since the people of Chibougamau-Chapais-naturally-pay as much tax as any other Canadian citizen, contribute as much as any worker living in the Quebec, Montreal or Rouyn-Noranda area. I sincerely feel that C.B.C. could extend this service through the CKRN station in Rouyn, or through a Lac-Saint-Jean station, which would not be quite

November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
so normal, since Chibougamau-Chapais is precisely a part of Villeneuve county, according to the new electoral boundaries and is connected to the Abitibi region rather than that of Lac-Saint-Jean-Saguenay. Now, the Rouyn-Noranda station would be quite capable of broadcasting C.B.C. programs for the benefit of Chibougamau-Chapais viewers and I feel that the C.B.C. authorities could take decisions in that respect.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If the amendment of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) to reduce the estimates by $107,942,999 is passed, there will not be much money left to pay the salaries of the president and employees of the C.B.C. The reasons why the hon. member moved his amendment are that his area is inadequately or not served at all and that very good programs have been discontinued, such as "This Hour has Seven Days" which is not shown on the French network, but was produced on the English network until last spring.
With regard to the French C.B.C. programs, we have excellent ones that are not shown however in all areas of the province. One especially which is very popular is the daily program "Aujourd'hui". Last year, that program lasted one hour daily, from Monday to Friday inclusive. This year, it was deemed advisable to cut fifteen minutes off that program, so that it only lasts three quarters of an hour, from Monday to Friday. That program "Aujourd'hui" is highly rated, but is not shown in northwestern Quebec.
Is the C.B.C. responsible for the fact that "Aujourd'hui" is not being shown over CKRN-TV, Rouyn-Noranda? If so, it seems to me that our area should enjoy good programs just as much as other areas of the province of Quebec.
I should also like to call the minister's attention to the French programs "Les affaires de 1'Etat", in which all political parties take part. We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have been allowed a period and a half every year, that is, 13 minutes and 30 seconds on one occasion, and 6 minutes and a few seconds on another.
In my opinion, more time should be granted to programs concerning the nation's business, public administration, administration in general and Canadian politics. I do not ask here additional time only for our group but for all political parties represented in this house, so
[Mr. Caouette.l
that the population may be informed on politics in general and on economic and social affairs.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. is not supposed to be concerned with politics, but I noticed many times that a great number of separatists are appearing on the national television network.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Liberals for applauding and I would support them if they presented a motion to clean up the network, because there is socialist or separatist vermin in the C.B.C. The example which I want to give you concerns us a little.
On October 8 and 9 last, we had our national convention in Drummondville. At that time, C.B.C. cameramen and a reporter came to meet us on Saturday and, in the evening, during the eleven o'clock national news, there was about a minute and fifteen seconds of news on the occasion of our national convention. On Sunday night, there was another piece of news, but not on the national network; at six o'clock, during the Montreal local news, which does not even cover Quebec but only the area around Montreal.
That was on October 9. The following week-end the convention of Pierre Bour-gault's separatist movement was held in the province of Quebec. At that time, Mr. Chairman, for three consecutive days, on the screen of the national network which gives the news to French Canadians in western Canada as well as in the maritimes, we saw Mr. Bourgault three times when he was speaking to the people attending the convention, we were shown the hall where the delegates were meeting, we heard comments on the convention of Bourgault's separatists in the province of Quebec, and that on the whole network.
The next day I took the liberty to call the head of the news department in Montreal. For the information of those who do not know his name, I will give it. He is Mr. Frangois Peladeau, director of the C.B.C. news department in Montreal. He answered me in an arrogant manner, saying that he was the one to decide, that he did not have to take orders from members of parliament. Call him, Mr. Chairman, and you will find out about his arrogance. One would have thought that he owned the C.B.C.; it is Mr. Peladeau who decides that Mr. Bourgault will be on the air on the eleven o'clock national news and that the other parties will be completely ignored. And I think that the same unfairness prevails
November 23, 1966

against all political parties in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, I must say here that, at the present time, we get much better service from the C.B.C. English network than from the French network in our province as well as throughout Canada. I am a French Canadian and I say it as such.
For much too long, we have had in Montreal people who do whatever they please in the C.B.C., who laugh at us by saying, for instance, that the government has nothing to say that parliament has nothing to say, that the C.B.C. is a crown corporation. However, it is a crown corporation which depends on credits voted by the Canadian parliament. Those people must act with justice and fairness. If Mr. Francois Peladeau of Montreal is incapable of acting fairly, he should be thrown out as soon as possible, because it is urgent.
We should put an end, Mr. Chairman, to those people inviting socialists of all shades who come here from France, Belgium, Sweden, in short from everywhere and, as soon as they land in Canada, are heard on the C.B.C. and that, when we do not even have the means or get the chance to say frankly what we think on television.
Mr. Chairman, although we vote $113 million to allow those people to impose their views on us, I do not want to impose mine on them, but I want the Canadian parliament and Canadians to be treated fairly and equitably.
Mr. Chairman, those who take an interest in Canadian politics know what happens at political conventions but surely this separatism by Mr. Bourgault does not have national scope, for it is confined within the limits of the province of Quebec. Mr. Bourgault does not believe in the rest of Canada, and the C.B.C. gives him free publicity to poison the minds of people in the province of Quebec, because Mr. Bourgault himself knows that. When you ask him the question: What is it? Is separatism a solution? He answers: No, no, it is not a solution.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Separatism is a means to go where? I do not know, but I will go anyway. There is the solution.


An hon. Member:: Is that where the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is going?


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member can think what he likes about the member for Lapointe,
Supply-C.B.C.
but I am convinced that neither the cause of the French Canadians nor the cause of the whole population of the country are thus being served. But, by this rowdy publicity, a service is rendered to separatists, who want to destroy everything in Canada and who have never built anything in their lives.
Recently, I made a speech before 800 students at the University of Sherbrooke. The C.B.C. had been invited to send representatives, but not a soul showed up. Then, a student stated that even if only good French Canadians were elected from the province of Quebec, we would still be crushed under the English majority. That is where I stated that a minority, whatever it may be, English, French, Chinese or whatever it is, that stands up and fights shall be respected anywhere in the world, but that a complacent minority shall fade away anywhere in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I was then quoting Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine who, in 1842, a few years after the uprising of 1837, worked, together with an English speaking Canadian, for the betterment of his fellow citizens and obtained for French Canadians some of the things they are still enjoying today. Lafontaine was alone. There were more people of that kind. We had some on both sides. But it is not by watching one another and fighting one against the other that Canada will grow and that Canadians will be respected. On the contrary, it is by mutual discussion on panels, without depreciating or setting aside our personal convictions, that we will promote the growth of Canada in a climate of mutual understanding of its elements. I have never seen anybody work his way up in society by crushing his neighbour. If we are unable to climb up the social or political ladder of our country by our own means, powers and skills, we do not deserve to do so, whether we are French Canadians, English speaking or Ukrainian speaking Canadians. That seems logical to me.
Returning to the C.B.C., to what extent is that so important body appreciated at the present time? Why does the C.B.C. play the game of the opponents of the Canadian people? Why are certain individuals tolerated by the authorities of the C.B.C. and even by the Department of the Secretary of State?
I understand quite well that one cannot intrude in the affairs of a crown corporation. No. But whenever there are abuses and injustices, I believe it is up to the department to

November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
interfere directly since, in the end, the department is the one having supreme control, they are the authority in the C.B.C. as well as in the B.B.G., as far as radio and television are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out those facts to your attention and to that of the house, in order that injustices in the C.B.C. may be stopped. Let them stop thinking we are simple-minded. Let them respect a little the appointed authority in this country.
I come now to another field pertaining to the C.B.C., namely the national news bulletins. It is often enough quite inferior to the one seen on the English network. Once again, who looks after the preparation of those news bulletins? If it is the news service, Mr. Peladeau is again responsible. He must often be away from his office, because quite often we get international news from Viet Nam, Zambia, Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, Belgium, France.
But nobody knows what is happening in Canada. There is no mention of Canada. For instance, a C.B.C. representative is sent to Viet Nam, to the South, to see what is going on and, at night, we hear four, five or six minutes of news dealing with Viet Nam. We are shown the killings, the war in Viet Nam.
But what is happening here in Canada, what is of interest to Canada, is forgotten, is not mentioned. What is happening in the House of Commons-you do not see a representative from the C.B.C. here, when we are discussing the $113 million we are giving them-there is not one here in the galleries even to take notes and report on the national news tonight. On the other hand, there is not one, for instance, who would be happy to see his pay cheque disappear at the end of the month. But we are not told what is happening in the country.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) the abuse over the C.B.C. French network in particular. Because that is where it happens mostly. As I said a little earlier, we are better served by the English network, and I say it as a French Canadian, than by our own French network. And I want the country to know it, and that is why I say it here in the house, and I do not care about the reactions of those people, that men like Jean Peladeau must be called to order, must be forced to act fairly-I am not saying that they should favour the Creditistes, or the Liberal party or the Conservative party, but to act as public servants of a crown

corporation, as men who are paid out of everybody's taxes. Then, we will probably get more justice.
And before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I again ask the minister to see to it that the C.B.C. provide television coverage to the people of Chibougamau-Chapais, in northwestern Quebec. Those people need that service as much as we, in this area, and throughout Canada.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with much of what has been said during the debate this afternoon, particularly the remarks regarding the extension of television coverage. We in this party hope that the minister in her statement will tell us something of the success of the program to establish television transmitter satellites in order to extend coverage.
My main remarks this afternoon will relate to the policy of programming. This is a subject which deserves a most careful examination by this committee because there has been little opportunity to do so. No head of the C.B.C. has been appointed yet and this makes it doubly important that we have an opportunity to examine the policy of programming of the C.B.C.
In order to examine policy I am afraid we must look at programming because, as has already been pointed out, statements of policy become absolutely meaningless when compared with the product resulting from that policy. If we have a situation in which the C.B.C. as such has no policy at the top it must be realized that there is still a policy. Much of what has happened to the C.B.C. over the past several years has beeen involved in a definite and certain policy.
Let me now refer to a couple of events we have witnessed within the last two months. First of all I wish to draw attention to the coverage given by the C.B.C. to something called "The Red China Teach-In" recently held in Toronto. The coverage of that event lasted one hour without taking into account preliminary coverage or news reports. The a.m. radio coverage lasted three hours, two of them being live, and the f.m. coverage lasted ten hours.
Let me remind hon. members just what that event was. Perhaps I can do so best by indicating the roster of speakers. At the Friday evening session the speakers were Dr. Han Suyin, a defender of the communist revolution, Lord Lindsay of Birker, chairman of the far eastern program in the School of International Service, American University,
November 23, 1966

Washington, D.C., David Crook, a teacher at the Peking Institute of Languages who has written about the early years of the revolution. The chairman was Toronto journalist and former Peking correspondent Charles Taylor.
At the third session the speakers were John Gittings, an English specialist on the Sino-Soviet split, Shinkichi Eto, associate professor of international relations at the University of Tokyo, and Stuart Schram, the U.S. born director of the Chinese and Soviet section of the Centre d'Etudes des Relations Internationales, Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris. The chairman was University of Toronto president Claude T. Bissell. At the final session the speakers were John Mendelson, a leftwing British Labour M.P., Leo Mates, director of the Institute of International Politics and Economy, Belgrade, and Charles Burton Marshall, professor of international relations at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The chairman was Canadian diplomat Chester Ronning.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I wonder, when the C.B.C. was confronted with this lineup of speakers, if it gave any thought to whether in covering this event it could maintain a balance in the presentation of political thought in Canada. I have here a list of articles by a variety of authors who, regardless of their political beliefs, over and over again decry the fact that balance was not achieved in that particular series.
I tried to compare the time given to this series with the time given to another subject. I thought I could possibly obtain from the C.B.C. an indication of the time given to the NATO conference recently held in Europe, a conference at which the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska was elected president of the newly formed north Atlantic assembly. A significant change in the purpose and direction of that organization was evident and his election brought honour to this country. I submit that the activities of that organization, to which this country is committed by a solemn treaty and to which we have committed our men, our supplies and our money for a very long period of time, should have been an event of significance even to the C.B.C. So far I have been unable to obtain from them any indication that any coverage was given to the event. I trust they will be able to find that something was done on this subject by the C.B.C. because if the C.B.C.
Supply-C.B.C.
could bring Gerda from Munich they could have brought us the NATO conference from Paris.
I should also like to refer to a more recent program in which an individual named Allen Ginsberg appeared. I have obtained some material on this personality. In an extract from the Readers' Encyclopedia of American Literature there is the following:
Ginsberg claimed a predilection for apolitical mystic communism, homosexual romance, marijuana-high mentation, and cosmic ecstasy in poetry.
The 1966 Who's Who in America writes that his activities have included poetry readings in Havana, Prague, Moscow, Warsaw and London in 1965. To that glorious record we can add the C.B.C. in Toronto.
I would now like to refer to the standing committee on broadcasting which met earlier this year. At that time Mr. Haggan of the C.B.C. appeared before the committee-I know he is no longer with the corporation- and I asked him whether, if someone comes up with a really bright idea which is sensational but very much on the borderline, it can be kept off the air by people other than top management. Mr. Haggan said yes, many things are kept off the air by people other than top management. At that time I doubted that this was so and I doubt it very much more now since Mr. Ginsberg has appeared on the C.B.C. because, judging by his writings and statements, he is at the very bottom so far as morality is concerned. Nevertheless the C.B.C. put him on the air. The fact that he was given a rousing round of applause by the audience who watched him is no indication of the quality of the performer. It is merely a sad commentary on the emptiness of Canadian life at the present time.
This matter is serious. While Mr. Ginsberg was in Canada-I gather at the invitation of the C.B.C.-he also took the opportunity to recommend the use of LSD by all Canadians. I have already made reference to this matter in the last couple of days. We are involved in a battle, the most serious in which we can be involved, and I would remind the house and the official opposition that the battle is not over integration, unification or the Bona-venture but rather is for the minds of Canadians. Whoever heads the C.B.C. will be our admiral, our general and our air marshal, and may the hon. lady find a Canadian, man or woman, equal to the task.
I am reminded of a poem which I read once while sitting for an examination in English. I

November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
know examinations are no longer popular, but that is another matter.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They are still unpopular.


Howard Earl Johnston: I know. However, occasionally they are useful, but even that is being denied now. The poem is as follows:
God is not mocked,
Hell's gates are opened
We could have kept them locked.
It had reference to world war II which had broken out partly because Canada and Canadian leadership had slept through the formative years in the 1930's.
I cannot understand why we in Canada at the present time should be so unaware of the dangers that confront us in the mass media in spite of the fact that we have in Canada a prophet who keeps reminding us about what we have created for ourselves. I am referring to Marshall McLuhan whom I have mentioned before in this house. It behooves us all to read his writings carefully. If you look at his books, "Understanding Media", you will find this reference:
All wars have been fought by the latest technology available in any culture.
He was referring to television. There is no use preparing for the enemy without if we welcome an enemy within and if we permit the minds of Canadians to be influenced by any wind that blows. We are not sufficiently discriminatory. As always, freedom is threatened on all sides. We face dangers in the world which are likely to tear it apart. We face dangers from rampant racialism which exists in many parts of the world. The C.B.C. contributed nothing to that battle when it brought Lincoln Rockwell here and gave him the use of a system of communication into which the taxpayers of this country have poured so many dollars. It did nothing to fight that enemy when it brought representatives from the Ku Klux Klan and presented them in a favourable light. It does nothing against the threat from the other side when it does not maintain a balance in programs involving a teach-in in Toronto or a person such as Mr. Ginsberg.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to refer to an article on Mr. Ginsberg in Life magazine which describes his effect on some people. Mr. Ginsberg visited the city of Kansas and met students at the university. The magazine article says that "imploring faces shine with want of Allen's talk". I do not see why we should bring him

here. It is again a commentary on the emptiness of our life when he is referred to as a religious leader, as the kind of religious leader we knew on this earth thousands of years ago. In this field too we fight the wrong battles. But we do not come up to date. Although technology changes the problem so often remains the same.
Let me refer to the first story in the book of Genesis when Eve was faced with temptation. I do not happen to believe that that story is a literal record of what actually happened but it does ring with tremendous truth, and the important thing is that we get the message. The thing about Eve was that she was faced with the same subtle temptation which is now being offered to the young people of this country from many sources, and the C.B.C. is assisting in presenting this temptation through the medium of television and Mr. Ginsberg. This temptation is to opt for what is called total involvement. This is all Eve was promised, and this is what we promise through television to our young people. The effect of this involvement is just as disastrous now, and the promise is just as empty now, as it was when the idea first occurred to man.
We argue in Canada at the present time-some coverage is also given to this by the C.B.C.-that God is dead. I do not happen to believe that precept, but whether he is dead or alive alters nothing at all so far as the responsibilities of Canada's government and the management of the C.B.C. are concerned at the present time. We still have the responsibility to set a standard of moral values. If we believe that we do this with God's will and with His aid, more power to us. If there are Canadians who do not have this feeling, the responsibility is not changed one fraction. The times do not call for us to drift; they call for us to set a course.
Even Han Suyin who spoke at the teach-in knew this when she wrote her first great book that gained her the fame which ultimately brought her to the teach-in. In the preface she quoted from a poem:
The angels keep their ancient places,
Turn but a stone and start a wing 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces,
That miss the many-splendored thing.
I suspect she has now forgotten the advice she gave when she found that stanza and quoted it.
I should like to call to the attention of all political parties in the house the fact that they should concern themselves with this issue.
November 23, 1966

This is a far bigger thing than politics or party. I should like to refer to an article I made mention of the other night in the Toronto Star for November 16 entitled "Why Pot Threatens Canada's New Left". The article is rather lengthy but I wish to quote briefly from it:
"Kids who are alienated and frustrated are going into the drug culture," Jack Newfield says. "When they drop out they stop going at society and become as ineffectual as the beats. A lot of people in the peace movement and the civil rights movement are getting into the drug thing. They've become disillusioned with the possibility of changing their society so now they're trying to change their own reality."
I do not see why the C.B.C. should be presenting a feature program timed, ironically enough, for a Sunday evening, which, at least up till the last program, has been built entirely around a concept gained from the use of a drug that threatens everything we hold true in Canada today. I believe that the situation is not hopeless. We echo the words of others in saying that television is something in front of which we sit, that we can concern ourselves with the direction it takes, and that we can make it a force for good in this country.
I urge all members to concern themselves very deeply with the development of both policy and program. I should like the assurance of the minister on behalf of the members of this party that the policies which are laid down are a clear expression of government thinking so that the people working in this medium of communications will clearly understand them. If they are not prepared to abide by these policies, then the C.B.C. and, if necessary, the government and parliament must be prepared to move with strength to counter the most serious threat that faces us today.


Mr. Blouin:: November 23, 1966
Supply-C.B.C.
she gets the opportunity to do so, whether this offer is acceptable or not.
The Fowler report also mentions the northern service.
Reference is often made to "the frozen north" or "the silent north" but, from our experience in relation to broadcasting, it would be equally apt to speak of "the forgotten north".
I believe several members who have spoken here this afternoon are in the same situation.
Out of 55 briefs submitted to the Committee, not one made any mention of the northern regions of Canada and their broadcasting needs.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his speech but I rise on a point of order. I understand there is general agreement in the committee that a vote be taken on the motion proposed this afternoon. Without going into the reasons for the agreement, may this vote be taken before six o'clock?


Gustave Blouin: I agree with the comments made by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh).


Howard Earl Johnston: On a question of privilege, I referred a few minutes ago to the NATO conference coverage and I have received information that I did not have during the course of my remarks. I have here a communication from a Mr. Parent, supervisor, who says:
There was nothing on the NATO conference. It probably got regular news coverage, which we do not record.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. McIntosh) negatived: Yeas, 41; Nays, 74.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six o'clock was called.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Do I understand that item 1 is carried?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. I call it six o'clock; it is after six.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being after six o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


George James McIlraith: I want to announce the business for tomorrow. I shall announce the estimates.


Michael Starr: Why are you worried about item 1?


George James McIlraith: Item 1 was carried.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, since the house has now given the time it intended to discussion of the C.B.C. and B.B.G., and since there are complaints that certain people have not had an opportunity to speak, would the house give unanimous consent to reverting to motions and then pass unanimously item No. 106 on the order paper which was placed there on October 24? I refer to sending the white paper on broadcasting to the committee so that it may proceed to call the witnesses that some hon. members wish to question.


George James McIlraith: It is not necessary to revert to motions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Sharp:
That the white paper on broadcasting (1966) tabled on July 4 last be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the government house leader now in a position to make a report about tomorrow's business in the light of certain discussions that have taken place?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Last night in announcing the business of the house I indicated that on Thursday we would be considering the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, to be followed by consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have been requested by the house leaders of the other parties to make a variation in that
November 23, 1966	COMMONS
order. Therefore the estimates to be considered tomorrow will be the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, the estimates of the Department of Finance and the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I understand further that it is the expectation that the external affairs estimates discussion will last for two hours, or until there is an opportunity for one speaker from each party to participate in the discussion, and that they will then be withdrawn from the committee if not immediately passed. Then the next three hours would be devoted to the estimates of the Department of Finance, with the balance of the day being spent on the
Business of the House
estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In concluding may I say that it would be helpful to the procedures of the house if the estimates, after discussion has been held on particular items, were permitted to pass and not be withheld as has been done tonight, so that we will not be confronted with a big mass of them on Friday at 5.30 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being after six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
10273
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 24, 1966