1967-11-01

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to table copies of letters dated October 24 that I have written to the provincial ministers of finance. I am tabling one copy of the letters in English and one copy in French of the letter to Mr. Dozois, the Quebec minister of finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this correspondence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SHIPPING


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English and two in French of the report of the inquiry commission on the St. Lawrence ports. Hon. members will recall that this commission was established in June of last year to inquire into the size and make-up of work gangs employed in the three major St. Lawrence ports and at the same time to inquire into job security in these ports and related matters.
In tabling the report I should like to thank the commissioner, Dr. Laurent Picard, for the time and effort he put into this important work and more particularly for his patience in the conduct of the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-177, respecting the restriction on importation into Canada of certain commodities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I enter this bill mainly on account of the many representations I have received from farm organizations associated with the products mentioned in the bill which were omitted in the previous bill, No. C-166, which I entered for first reading on October 16.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



RESTORATION OF SAMBRO LIGHTSHIP, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the government received communications from residents of Nova Scotia calling for restoration of the Sambro lightship?
2.	If so (a) have the communications been reviewed by the Department of Transport (b) what decision has been reached?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secreiary io Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Changes and improvements in aids to navigation in the Halifax area are under continuing review, but information gathered to date does not indicate necessity for reinstatement of lightship.



AIR CANADA FLIGHTS, MONTREAL-HALIFAX

Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Is a reduction planned in the frequency of flights this fall and winter, by Air Canada, between Montreal and Halifax over last year?
2.	If so, what is the extent of the proposed reduction and what are the reasons for such action?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.



ROUTE SUBSIDIES TO AIR CARRIERS

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1. Are there any air carriers receiving route subsidies or assistance to the route from the Air Transport Board at the present time?

November 1, 1367
Questions
2.	If so, what are the names of the companies and in what amounts?
3.	Were these subsidies or assistance to the route approved by a formal hearing before the board?
4.	Are there any applications pending before the board at the moment and, if so, what are the names of the applicants and on what dates will hearings be held?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	TransAir Limited, Winnipeg. Payments for the first half of 1967 are expected to amount to $151,000.
3.	No.
4.	An application by Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Limited is pending. It is not intended to hold a formal hearing to deal with this application.



PUBLIC SERVANTS ON LEAVE TO LEARN LANGUAGES

Mr. Goyer: 1.	How many civil servants are now on leave with pay in order to learn the French or English language and what is the sum total of their salaries?
2.	How many university graduates were hired by the various departments over the course of the last fiscal year?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. Civil servants learning the French or English language on a part time basis are expected to perform the duties of their positions and are therefore in no sense "on leave with pay". Those who are learning the French or English language on a full time basis are not expected to perform their regular duties. On October 11, 1967, the number participating on a full time basis for periods of three weeks, three months, or one year was 116, and the sum total of their monthly salaries was about $105,000.
2. The Public Service Commission maintains statistics only on the number of university graduates appointed as a result of the special university recruitment program designed to bring recent graduates into the service. The total number of these recruited in the last fiscal year was 646.



ABILITY OF AIRFIELDS TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE PLANES

Mr. Forrestall: 1. Is the government, through any of its branches or agencies, conducting studies on the present 
capabilities of our large airfields to accommodate movement in the realm of supersonic and Jumbo ,1et travel?
2. If so, have any early or interim conclusions been determined and what are they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The Department of Transport is conducting studies on the capabilities of our major airports to accommodate the large capacity aircraft and supersonic aircraft. These studies involve numerous other agencies such as inspection services, (customs, immigration and health), community planners, as well as the air lines. The entire system is being examined in relation to this subject.
2. No interim conclusions have been determined as yet.



IMPROVED AIR TO GROUND RADIO FACILITIES FOR AIR LINE COMPANIES

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government, through the Department of Transport or any of its agencies, at present studying the need for more efficient air to ground radio facilities for use by our air line companies involved in trans ocean flights?
2.	If so, in co-operation with what other countries are such studies being made and when might a conclusion be reached?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The efficiency of air to ground radio facilities is kept under continuous review by the Department of Transport in keeping with the state of the art.
2. Standards for air-ground communications in transocean flights are established through the International Civil Aviation Organization and involve co-operation with various countries on a regional and worldwide basis. Conclusions in respect of specific systems can be obtained from the various reports issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization headquarters in Montreal.



AIRPORT ASSISTANCE UNDER FEDERAL PROGRAM

Mr. Brand: 1.	Have requests for assistance under the federal airport program been deferred until April 1, 1969?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for such deferral?
3.	Will consideration be given to special circumstances such as the provision of landing strips for ambulance planes even if the answer to part 1 is in the affirmative?
4.	Has an application for assistance under the above program, submitted by the village of Neilburg, Saskatchewan, been deferred by the Department of Transport and, if so, for what reasons?
November 1, 1967


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No. The deferment is for an indefinite period.
2.	The airport contribution vote is currently limited to one million dollars per annum for all such contributions throughout Canada and is already committed for at least a full year in advance. Therefore, in view of the large number of applications for airport assistance from all parts of Canada which have been received during the past two years, and of which many have yet to be submitted to necessary economic and technical studies, the department placed a temporary freeze on the assessment of applications, effective August 15, 1967.
3.	The potential use by ambulance planes is one of a number of guide lines utilized in assessing an application for airport financial assistance, and consideration could be given if special circumstances, supported by federal or provincial health authorities, appeared to warrant such action in the light of funds available.
4.	An application has not yet been received from the village of Neilburg, Saskatchewan. If one is received it would be noted for future consideration for the reasons explained in (2) above.



CONSTRUCTION OF C.B.C. HEADQUARTERS, MONTREAL

Mr. Valade: 1.	How far advanced is the work on Place Radio-Canada in Montreal?
2.	When did construction begin and what type of work has been completed to date?
3.	What contracts, if any, have been awarded to date and what is the amount of each?
4.	When is construction to be completed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Foundation excavation and piling is in progress and detailed working drawings for tendering purposes have been completed.
2.	Excavation and piling commenced on October 1, 1966 and this work is scheduled for completion December 1, 1967.
3.	One construction contract has been awarded for excavation and piling in the amount of $3,125,000.
4.	The target date for completion is early 1972.
Questions



PENSION TO FORMER JUSTICE LANDREVILLE

Mr. Brand: 1.	Is the former Justice Landreville receiving a pension and, if so, how much?
2.	If not, was he granted any pension, compensation or ex gratia payment?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1. No.
2. No.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is an important point of order which I wish to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. Last week I asked the Prime Minister if he would prevail upon ministers to pay more attention to the written questions on the order paper and expedite the answers. At that time there were some 138 unanswered questions and today a week later, there are 144. I noticed that on Monday only 12 questions were answered and only 9 questions were answered today. The questions are piling up faster than the answers are being given.
It is true that some answers may be lengthy, but the answers to a great many of these questions could be given very expeditiously. I appeal again to the Prime Minister to ask the ministers to be more industrious in this connection so we can expedite the business of the house.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, is quite wrong. There are outstanding 133 questions, and 440 have been answered. There are 10 outstanding starred questions and 85 have been answered. A large number of these questions will take weeks to answer because of the way in which they have been asked and the information requested, and they will cost thousands of dollars to answer.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to rise on a question of privilege I should like to speak to the point of order and wonder whether much can be gained by pursuing the matter. However, if the hon. member wants to rise on a question of privilege I will recognize him.


Michael Starr: My question of privilege is this. The Prime Minister is not giving an answer which helps in the programming, something

November 1, 1967
Motions for Papers
the Prime Minister himself has advocated to expedite the business of this house. He is giving me the same answer that he gave last Wednesday.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I speak to the point of order. May I ask the Prime Minister or the house leader if they would look at question No. 131 which was placed on the order paper on May 26. It does not seem to call for a great deal of research, and I ask if that answer could not be expedited.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is one that I think could be answered.


Michael Starr: And there are many others.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, motions for papers Nos. 25 and 27 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 23?
Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations that have been expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion 25 and 27 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOME MAIL DELIVERY, PORT ALFRED AND BAGOTVILLE, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all official correspondence between the Post Office Department and the municipalities of Bagot-ville and Port Alfred, and all correspondence relating to the introduction of home delivery service from the post offices of Port Alfred and Bagotville, commencing October 16, 1967.
Motion agreed to.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION, OTTAWA RIVER Motion No. 27-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid

before this house a copy of all correspondence, memoranda or other documents exchanged since January 1, 1967, between the minister or any official of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the responsible ministers, boards, commissions or agencies of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec relating to a plan for the abatement and control of pollution in the Ottawa river.
Motion agreed to.
TRANSFER OF FISHERIES STAFF, QUEBEC Motion No. 23-Mr. Keays:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the personnel of the fisheries department in Quebec city and the minister or his departmental officials, concerning the transfer to the Quebec city office of a majority of the Gaspe staff.
Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: This notice of motion concerns correspondence exchanged within the department between departmental officials. It is not customary to table such correspondence. However, I am prepared to give confidentially to the hon. member all the information available regarding this problem.


Mr. Keays:: With the assurance from the minister that he will give me as much information as possible, I am willing that the motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


James Russell Keays: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



FINANCE


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the house would give unanimous consent to revert to motions I should like to table the non-paylist payments from vote 5 for the year 1966-67.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Do I understand that what the minister is tabling is the nonpaylist payments only? I thought he was going to table everything under the contigen-cy item.


Edgar John Benson: Last night I agreed to table the non-paylist items. I think you will find the paylist items in my answers last night, as recorded in Hansard.
November 1, 1967


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The language the minister used was "I will give everything, the whole list." I do not believe there was any qualification whatever upon it. What the minister seeks to table is not in accordance with what he said in the debate last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There should not be a debate. The minister is asking for leave to table certain documents and I have to ask whether the house gives leave.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give leave and to ask my colleagues so to do, but I point out that this is not in accordance with the commitment that was made.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I made a commitment I would be glad to live up to that commitment. We on this side of the house always live up to our commitments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PROPOSED U.S. QUOTA RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the mounting pressure in the United States congress for import quotas to nullify Canada's freer access to the United States market due to Kennedy round tariff reductions, will the minister advise the United States government that Canada has no intention of lowering tariffs on United States products entering Canada from January 1 on unless we first receive a clear cut assurance from the United States government that import quotas will not be imposed against our products?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question that might more properly have been addressed to the Minister of Finance. However, I was in touch with Washington this morning and am therefore able to inform the house that I have had assurances from the United States, which as I say have been confirmed as recently as today, that the United States intends to implement its Kennedy round tariff concessions beginning January 1, 1968.
As regards the bills now before the United States congress for the imposition of import quotas, as the house is aware the Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry government has indicated its serious concern in a note which I tabled in the house October 19. While not minimizing the nature of these pressures, we have received assurances from the highest levels in the United States government that the administration is doing and will continue to do everything possible to ensure that restrictive measures are not brought into effect.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of our unfortunate experiences in this regard when import quotas were imposed in the past, will the minister make sure that we receive a clear cut assurance that these import quotas will not be imposed?



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Solicitor General. In view of the growing incidence of glue sniffing and its serious effects on young people will the government give consideration to the introduction of amendments to the Criminal Code making glue sniffing an unlawful act, subject to control by law enforcement agencies?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this question I should first point out that the hon. member for Carleton also raised this question with me in a letter. I can advise the house that the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Justice and officials of my department are now giving this matter active consideration.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister ask his department to take whatever measures are necessary to regulate the use of the offending substance, toluene, in products that can be bought by young people and which are the cause of the serious problems being created by glue sniffing?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think a bill was introduced yesterday in the other place-if not it is proposed to introduce such a bill-dealing with the question of hazardous substances, and there is one provision in that bill that deals with the very point that has been raised by the hon. member. It will
November 1, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry give us authority to prescribe the conditions of sale and method of advertising such substances that may be harmful.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether one of the ministers, be he the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, would consider setting up a special committee now to review all the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code, since it is some years since it was last reviewed.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there will be an omnibus Criminal Code bill introduced at this session which will contain a great number of amendments. I suggest that to add to those at this time would perhaps delay its introduction. After this omnibus bill has been dealt with, through co-operation with hon. members perhaps we could as the next step follow the suggestion of the hon. member.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As we are approaching the end of the year will he inform the house what are the intentions of his department regarding the exemptions under the federal labour standards code granted to various branches of the transport industry? Will the exemptions that terminate in December of this year be extended?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this question is of immediate urgency or whether the hon. member is seeking information which should be given by the minister on motions.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, considering the urgency because of the time involved and the complications in respect of the application, I wonder whether I might rephrase my question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether any application has been made to extend the exemptions granted to some parts of the transport industry in respect of the labour code, particularly the 40 hour week.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question, which in my opinion, should not be answered on the
[Mr. MacEachen.)
orders of the day. If it is placed on the order paper I shall be glad to supply the information requested.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, asking whether he can now announce the date of a supplementary budget to effect a large reduction in the budgetary deficit, as suggested by the governor of the Bank of Canada in Winnipeg today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions. Let me inform the hon. member that no decision has been made and when one is made it will be announced.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that inflation is pushing up the price levels in Canada more than twice as fast as in the United States, with all the associated problems this creates, will the minister undertake to make a statement tomorrow when he introduces his estimates as to what fiscal, monetary or economic policies the government proposes to grapple with this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I expect that when my estimates are before the house tomorrow I shall be cross-examined and I shall do my best to answer all questions put to me. It is not my intention to make a definitive statement on this matter at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the minister's intention to make a definitive statement to the house in the near future regarding this matter, which is causing widespread concern, particularly in the business community?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of his absence perhaps I could direct it to his parliamentary secretary, who was here
November 1, 1967

a moment ago, or to whoever is acting for him, and ask him to take it as notice. Can the minister advise whether anything will be done for workers affected by widespread layoffs in industries as the result of cutbacks by the United States in defence sharing programs?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the minister's attention for an early reply.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the removal of the southern Georgian bay region from the list of designated areas discriminates against the Owen Sound area, which now has close to 2,100 men and women seeking employment there, will he give consideration to restoring this region to the list of designated areas or to making special provision for the Owen Sound employment area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my
impression that questions in respect of designated areas should not be accepted, as they have not been previously, and I think the hon. member might consider putting his question on the order paper. If there are special reasons for immediate debate on this question perhaps the hon. member would consider it appropriate to debate the question during the adjournment proceedings.


Percy Verner Noble: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



SYDNEY, N.S.-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING OPERATION OF STEEL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, asking whether he can now say that a decision has been reached by the federal government as to its participation in cost sharing with the government of Nova Scotia in order to keep the Sydney steel plant operating.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No final decision has been reached on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but discussions are still continuing on this matter of urgency.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Since no decision has been reached, may I ask whether this failure to reach a decision is the result of a split in the federal cabinet on this important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the supplementary question is acceptable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no substance to that story, I may say.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-UNEMPLOYMENT RESULTING FROM SALE OF VICTORIA MACHINERY DEPOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Winch (Vancouver East):: It
had been my wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration; in his absence I should like to direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Last Monday the minister said he would reply on Wednesday to a question I asked him regarding possible unemployment occasioned by the sale of the Victoria Machinery Depot to the Burrard Drydock Company. Since I was told I would receive an answer today, may I ask the parliamentary secretary if he is now in a position to report on the results of the inquiries the department has made.


John Carr Munro: I can only assure the hon. member that I will try to have an answer ready tomorrow.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Will the parliamentary secretary make efforts to assure us through his minister's answer tomorrow that the team employed by this firm which built the offshore drilling rig called "Sedco" will be maintained so we may be able to build another on the west coast?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to take this opportunity to answer a question asked several weeks ago by the hon. member for Saskatoon; I am glad to be in a position to answer his question now. Bearing in mind the fact that the Saskatoon area is already served by a C.B.C. affiliate, and having regard to our efforts to reduce public expenditures, the government has regretfully come to the conclusion that
November 1, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the establishment of a C.B.C. television station at Saskatoon at the present time cannot be approved. Action on the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors, in its report, will therefore be deferred.
I should add that the government does not reject the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors and continues to favour the establishment by the C.B.C. of television facilities in Saskatoon. We hope that, in due course, circumstances will permit the government to authorize the expenditures involved for this purpose.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: In the light of that statement by the Prime Minister may I ask the right hon. gentleman this question. Since the C.B.C. has now been hog-tied by the government in this connection, would the Prime Minister consider allowing a private group to set up a television station in Saskatoon instead of the C.B.C.?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the announcement made today of the government's decision to defer the establishment of a C.B.C. station in Saskatoon. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether this decision reflected the advice he received through consultation with Premier Thatcher?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his capacity as part time housing minister. In view of the mounting evidence of a continuing housing crisis, as shown by cases of family breakup due to inadequate accommodation, can the minister now tell us the agenda to be submitted to the important housing conference he intends to hold?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think I stated earlier in the week that the agenda for the conference had not been settled. The Prime Minister has communicated with the premiers of the ten provinces. Their ideas have been invited and we are now working on the agenda, but it is likely to be at least another two or three weeks before it is finalized.


Reid Scott: In view of the differences which exist between the municipalities and the provincial governments about the nature of the housing shortage and its solution, is the minister considering any method by which the views of some of the larger cities and large urban areas might be ascertained?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Well, for one thing the union of mayors and reeves is presenting to the cabinet some ideas on the subject on Monday morning. Further action, if any, will, I imagine, depend on the nature of the discussions which take place next Monday.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the housing corporation. I base my question on the fact that families are being separated because of the housing shortage. In order to help members of the house obtain information as to the psychological reasons that many money-lenders are not putting money into the mortgage market, can the minister say whether the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works will be reconvened soon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
accept the great majority of the premises included in the so-called question. It sounded to me more like a speech than a question. So far as I am concerned, if the committee wishes to meet to consider this matter there is no reason why it should not do so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the light of persistent reports that we are soon to face the semiannual budget, would the minister prevail upon his colleagues so that we may deal now with the budget resolutions and the bills that follow, as shown in item 2 on the order paper, giving them priority over items such as No. 38? Otherwise we shall be caught up in the nonsense of having a new budget before dealing with the provisions of the previous budget.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity of adding a bit of information to that already before the house. It is my intention early
November 1, 1967

next week to table the resolutions dealing with the implementation of the Kennedy round, which will also be placed before the ways and means committee as I indicated in my budget message in June. I have told the house leader that I am ready to proceed at any time with all the resolutions.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speech made a few days ago in Toronto by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the information recently placed before the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I now ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he is in a position to report to the house his department's findings in relation to making exhaust control features for motor vehicles a national standard.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to give a resume of the situation in the speech I made to the house a week ago Monday. The situation is that the control devices that have been developed are not fully effective even for the vehicles to which they may be attached. They are not applicable to the larger vehicles which are the greater sources of pollution. Of course it is desirable to use now whatever device is available that can reduce pollution to any extent, but we have to continue efforts in order to get a more effective device for multipurpose use.


William Heward Grafftey: Without being contentious, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask this supplementary question. In view of the fact that the United States federal authority and the province of Ontario have already ordered these standards as the best we have, would the minister not consider ordering the installation of whatever devices we do have as soon as possible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In so far as I am able to order any automobile manufacturer to instal these devices I will be quite happy to do so, but I understand that already automobile manufacturers are attaching and propose to attach these devices to automobiles.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the announced decision of the government to defer establishing a C.B.C. station in Saskatoon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is
asking a supplementary to a previous question. We are now dealing with a question raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi with reference to a matter on which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made a statement. I believe the hon. member for New Westminster has a supplementary question on that subject.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister consider making an early statement as to the progress being made to implement the motor vehicle safety regulations which were announced a week or two ago?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared to report to the house in due course. It will take some time for the department to determine which steps we should take, but I can assure my hon. friend that we are pursuing this matter with keen interest and vigour and I hope it will not be too long before we have something concrete to report to the house.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[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 National Health and Welfare. I have received several inquiries as to why the letters enclosing the monthly old age security payments also include pamphlets suggesting that the pensioners should purchase Canada savings bonds, and I think this matter should be explained in public. In view of the fact that many pensioners in receipt of old age security have to live on the pension, or little more, can the minister inform the house of the reason for this practice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the practice of including advertisements for Canada savings bonds was begun in 1960, I think on the occasion of the massive conversion, and I believe the practice has been continued ever since. It is not suggested that all old age pensioners are in a position to buy

November 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada savings bonds, but a certain proportion of them may be in that position. The practice has continued since that time, and I intend to have it reviewed to see whether it ought to be continued.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a vote yet been taken at the United Nations, in the fourth committee, concerning the subject of Rhodesia? The debate concerns the use of armed force to enforce sanctions against Rhodesia. If a vote has not already been taken can the minister tell us what Canada's position is to be in the matter?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my hon. friend's question as notice. His questions always deserve careful examination.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping dangers from air pollution will the government immediately consider granting tax incentives to any plants that instal anti-air pollution devices, similar to what is done already with respect to water pollution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to draw my hon. friend's suggestion to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position to answer the question I asked on Monday regarding the report of arms being found on board an Israeli ship which called at the port of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
[Mr. MacEachen.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the facts of this situation are that late Friday afternoon officials of the government were advised by an anonymous telephone call that a number of small arms were included in the cargo of a vessel due to leave Pictou, Nova Scotia, that same afternoon. It is, of course, the government's policy not to permit the export of any military equipment to the Middle East area of tension. No export permits have been granted for the export of small arms to the area nor have there been any applications for such permits. This matter is being investigated, and if I have any further information for my hon. friend I will give it to him.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I take it that the ship was followed by two R.C.M.P. cutters but before it was overtaken it got into international waters. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that is the case.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
In view of the record number of accidents at grade crossings this year and also of the disquieting findings about the Dorion tragedy reported last night, have the minister and his department tried to convince the railway companies to build grade separations at grade crossings in order to prevent such tragedies in the future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As my hon. friend knows there is a continuing program to which the government and the parliament of Canada contribute very substantially. My hon. friend will be pleased to know that the number of level crossing accidents has dropped very substantially over the years. I believe this program should be accelerated. I think it is a matter of interest that the total amount available was not taken up last year due to the fact that the provinces and municipalities were not in a position, for one reason or another, to take up all the funds which were available. I can assure
November 1, 1967	COMMONS
my hon. friend that I will press those concerned to continue with this very valuable program in a determination to reduce the number of accidents both on the highways and at level crossings.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Chaiwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask him whether, as a result of the discussions the officials of his department had in Europe, he can now give an assurance that the sealers will be able to obtain a fair price for pelts during the coming season.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, it is true that sealskins presently are moving slowly and are being sold at reduced prices. In fact the area where there is the greatest difficulty in selling is in the disposition of white coats. While we expect the production of white coats to be reduced during the coming seal season, I cannot at this time give assurance that the damage done to this industry by exaggerated and distorted publicity will not have some adverse effect on the market in the months ahead.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, As a new minister who is energetic and desirous of learning about the transportation problems of the maritimes, will the minister be attending the meeting to be held tomorrow night in Moncton concerning C.N.R. lay-offs and, if not, why not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am interested. I try to be energetic and try to learn as quickly as I can, but I regret that I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow night.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether any of his colleagues will be attending the meeting, since it seems to be an important one affecting the economy of the whole Atlantic region.
DEBATES	3745
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for York South will be attending. I am not sure who else will be able to go, but I do know that the hon. member for Westmorland will acquit herself very ably.


Reid Scott: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the hon. member for York South will be representing the government too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It will depend a lot on what he says.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish to bring to his attention a report by a very eminent English coroner to the effect that there is a direct link between the contraceptive pill and thrombosis which causes death.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Raymond Ballard: When I hear the laughter I wonder whether the same people were laughing when the thalidomide pill was discussed in this house. With that preface I should like to ask the minister to inform the house whether officers of his department are investigating this report in an attempt to determine any detrimental or fatal effects of this pill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to discuss the question with the officers of my department and report later to my hon. friend.



PROPOSED INCREASE IN AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CASH ADVANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which I believe involves a matter of urgency. In spite of the glowing report given by the minister last evening on the state of agriculture in Canada, in view of the dire cash shortage suffered by western farmers due to the loss of wheat markets would the minister give serious consideration
November 1, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to immediately amending the legislation on interest free cash advances on farm stored grain so that double the amount, namely $3,000, can be made available to our hard pressed farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a speech rather than asking a question. I do not think it is acceptable in that form.


Richard Russell Southam: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this is an urgent matter. I could put the question simply by asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member considers the matter to be urgent and wishes to have his question answered immediately, he should ask the question.


Richard Russell Southam: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he will make an announcement in respect of amendments to the cash advances legislation.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not anticipating making any announcement.



BROADCASTING


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.


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


An hon. Member:: Does the minister not intend to make a statement?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for being desirous of hearing my remarks in respect of this legislation. As hon. members know, the bill before us today for second reading represents a further step in what I think can fairly be called a process of legislation by consensus.
In formulating this bill we have tried as far as possible to seek out the views of those most interested and involved in this complex business of broadcasting, and to take those views into account in drafting the precise provisions of this legislation. It has been a

very lengthy process, but I submit a very worth-while one in arriving at the bill which is now before the house and which I truly believe incorporates the best judgment not just of the government and its officers but of numerous interested groups both within the industry and within this house. I am sure it is a better bill for the contributions of all these parties.
Our starting point, of course, was the report of the special committee on broadcasting headed by Mr. Robert M. Fowler of Montreal. This bill may differ in detail in a number of ways from the recommendations in the report of 1965, but it does draw much of its basic philosophy from the work of that committee. For this we are very much indebted to Mr. Fowler and to his fellow committee members, Mr. Marc Lalonde, now a member of the Prime Minister's staff, and Mr. G. G. E. Steele, under secretary of state.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I should like to express again my appreciation to the members of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for their contribution to this consensus. In our discussions of parliamentary reform we hear considerable talk about the role of our committees and the potential which exists within them for constructive work on behalf of parliament as a whole. I think there can be no better example than that displayed by the broadcasting committee during its hearings last spring on the white paper on broadcasting. Because this was indeed a committee free of narrow partisanship, a committee which sought only to find through the experience of its many witnesses the best course for broadcasting in Canada, its report was particularly valuable to us. So I would like to compliment members on all sides of the house who contributed to the work of this committee and particularly those who headed it, the hon. members for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) and Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) who were its first chairman and vice chairman, and the hon. members for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury) and Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) who succeeded them.
I should like to mention those who gave us very valuable advice before both the standing committee and the cabinet committee on broadcasting, the senior officers of the C.B.C., B.B.G., Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcasting League. These men are the experts and without their help during the formative period of this
November 1, 1967	COMMONS
legislation it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a bill which we can be certain is, in fact, workable.
From all these sources, and from the many other individuals and groups who have given us their views, we have arrived, as I have said, at a consensus, not on every detail of this lengthy and complex bill but a consensus certainly as to the main principles which should underlie it. Perhaps I might for a moment mention these agreed upon principles as a starting point and try to outline to the house how we have tried in this bill to carry each of them through to fulfillment. The report of the standing committee on broadcasting stated:
Although the ultimate authority and responsibility of parliament is clear, it is equally clear that parliament cannot administer or supervise broadcasting. Nor do we believe a minister of the crown should have such power. A reconstituted B.B.G. should provide an assessment of our broadcasting system. In order to do so, it must have clearcut directives from parliament as to how it will be expected to act on parliament's behalf.
The bill accordingly sets out in clear language a broadcasting policy for Canada which includes, for the first time, a mandate for the national broadcasting service operated by the C.B.C. It should be clearly understood that this is a new technique in broadcasting policy. The mandate set out is more than a preamble; it is an integral part of the measure, expressing the intentions of parliament, and it will have all the force of law. Thus, the whole of the rest of the bill must be considered in the context of this declaration of policy. The objects of the regulatory authority, the proposed Canadian radio commission, will quite simply be to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing this policy. Similarly, the objects of the C.B.C. are to provide the national broadcasting service in accordance with the mandate which forms an integral part of that policy. Each of these two bodies can exercise its powers only in furtherance of the policies established by parliament.
The first of these policy principles is that the airwaves are public property and that the broadcasting undertakings using them constitute a single system. There is, I believe, generally widespread agreement that the regulation and supervision of the broadcasting system should be delegated to an independent regulatory authority, and that this body and its decisions should be as free as possible from partisan political influence and the pressures of vested interests. But the 27053-237
DEBATES	3747
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting system as a whole, including both public and private elements, constitutes a public asset and it is clear, therefore, that the ultimate control of the system must rest with the government, since only the government is immediately-and I stress the word "immediately-answerable to parliament. It is for this reason that parliament is asked to reserve to the government of the day the power to give directions to the commission with regard to the number of channels or frequencies that may be used, and the reservation of channels or frequencies for the use of the C.B.C. or for special purposes such as educational broadcasting.
The standing committee has said "a distinctly Canadian broadcasting system is essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century" and also that "in future, broadcasting may well be regarded as the central nervous system of Canadian nationhood." It follows that the system must be effectively under Canadian ownership and control. It is simple enough to say that a single person owning or controlling a broadcasting undertaking must be a Canadian citizen, but the problem becomes much more difficult when we attempt to arrive at a statutory definition of what is meant by the effective ownership or control of a corporation. In practice, it has been found in other contexts that a statutory definition invariably opens the door to evasion. Consequently, in order to retain flexibility, and as forecast in the white paper, parliament is now being asked to reserve to the government the power to give directions to the commission aimed at preventing foreign control of Canadian broadcasting facilities. These directions will, of course, be made public and will thus be available for scrutiny by parliament.
The third principle embodied in the statutory declaration of policy reflects the opinion of the standing committee that "the privilege of exclusive use of any channel or frequency must be subject to the clear responsibility of serving the public interest as expressed through national policy." Obviously, every broadcaster must conform to the law of the land with regard to such matters as obscenity and libel, and the commission must have power to make regulations, as at present, with regard to the standards of programs and the nature and quantity of advertising that is to be permitted. Beyond these reasonable limitations, broadcasters must be allowed the right to freedom of expression; that is to say, censorship and pre-editing of programs are not only undesirable but impractical.
November 1, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
None the less this privilege of free speech carries with it a heavy responsibility and must be exercised with due regard to the public interest. It will therefore be a function of the commission to observe and assess the degree of responsibility shown by each broadcaster in exercising his privilege of free expression, and to take this factor into account when the renewal of his licence is under review. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has, of course, a very special responsibility to maintain objectivity as a corollary to freedom from censorship and pre-editing of programs. This is a matter of great concern to the public and was raised by several hon. members in the debate on the resolution introducing this legislation as well as at other times in the past few years. Therefore I would like to deal with that problem when I come to the control and management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the new legislation.
One of the most important objectives of the commission will be to ensure that Canadian audiences have a reasonable freedom of choice, and to see that the programming provided by the whole system, but not necessarily by a particular broadcaster, is varied and comprehensive and balanced in controversial matters. The prohibition of political broadcasts immediately before elections is to be continued, with some modifications, and the commission will be empowered to make regulations ensuring that broadcasting time for political broadcasts shall be assigned on an equitable basis. But it has to be recognized that straight political broadcasts are not the beginning and end of the matter. In considering applications for licences the commission will have to take fully into account the relationship between broadcasting and other mass media of communication in a particular area so as to avoid monopoly situations. In cases where a monopoly of communications media cannot be avoided for one reason or another, the commission will have to incorporate into the conditions of the broadcaster's licence a requirement for a balanced presentation of news and opinions.
The conditions of licence will also be used by the commission to establish the obligations of each broadcaster with regard to the quality and variety of programming and the allimportant matter of Canadian content. Under the 1958 legislation Canadian content on television has been established by regulation at 55 per cent, and no such requirement has


been imposed on radio stations. But in practice the whole concept has become confused with what might be termed public-interest programming, with the result that under the current regulations such events as the world series and Winston Churchill's funeral have been treated as Canadian content while a concert given in New York city by a Canadian artist might not be.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Canadian radio commission will now have a great deal more flexibility in determining the nature and proportion of Canadian content required from each broadcaster. The reason for this provision is quite simple. The production of Canadian programs is apt to be much more expensive than that of imported programs which are bought here at a substantial discount. It is therefore reasonable to require a greater effort in the direction of Canadian programming from the more profitable stations. The commission will thus deal with each broadcaster independently in setting the conditions of licence, having regard to all the circumstances of profitability and availability of Canadian talent resources. We all know that these vary greatly from one station to another and from one population centre to another.
The over-all percentage formula for Canadian content has failed in practice to implement what parliament clearly intended in the 1958 act when it empowered the B.B.G. to make regulations "for promoting and ensuring the greater use of Canadian talent". Since the only measure from that date to this of Canadian content has been the amount of broadcasting time, many broadcasting stations have seized the opportunity to meet the quota imposed on them by regulation by broadcasting Canadian programs that cost the least possible amount of money at times when the audience is negligible or non-existent, that is, from twelve midnight to one o'clock when they may have some individual playing an organ in an empty studio and this has been able to qualify as a Canadian program. But obviously if we mean what we say as individual parliamentarians and as parliament, this approach clearly is insufficient and under the new legislation the commission will be required to impose licensing conditions which would ensure that the programming of both the C.B.C. and the private broadcasters shall be of high quality, using predominantly Canadian resources.
November 1, 1967

This means that the standards to be applied by the commission cannot be measured only by broadcasting time. Both the quality and the nature of Canadian content will have to be taken into account as well so that the best possible use can be made of the abundant resources of Canadian talent which in the present unsatisfactory situation is all too often fleeing to New York, Hollywood or London. There is also no particular reason, so far as I can see, why the provisions with respect to Canadian content should not also be applied to commercial messages. The
B.	B.G. so far has not exercised its statutory authority under the present act for this purpose, but I would expect that the new commission will give this problem close and careful attention.
With regard to licences issued to the
C.	B.C., there is one important qualification. A private applicant who comes to the B.B.G. for a licence is perfectly free to consider the conditions which the commission proposes to impose upon him, and if he is not willing to accept these conditions to get his licence then he can withdraw his application. This option, however, is not available to the C.B.C. which is required to broadcast the national service, and a conflict of views on licensing conditions might well lead to an impasse between the two bodies. The legislation therefore provides that the conditions of licences issued to the corporation must conform to the requirements of the national broadcasting service as defined in the statutory declaration of policy.
Even so, it is conceivable that the commission might seek to impose a condition that the corporation finds unacceptable or impractical for financial or other reasons. It is therefore provided that if, after full consultation between the two bodies, there is still disagreement, the matter may be referred to the minister for decision. I should tell the house that no minister takes on lightly that kind of reference to him or her with regard to a disagreement between two senior governmental agencies. The standing committee has said:
We emphasize our conviction that the areas ot authority and responsibility of the B.B.G. and the C.B.C., and the nature of the relationship it is intended to establish between them, be fully understood and clearly defined in the legislation.
Unhappily, it is not possible, as we all know, to take care of every possible eventuality in a statute, and it is therefore essential to provide some means to resolve legitimate differences of opinion about licensing conditions in an orderly fashion. I cannot really 27053-2371
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting conceive that the senior officers of two such responsible bodies will indulge in constant bickering on licensing matters, so I do not think this procedure will ever be used or, if at all, it will be very infrequently.
The standing committee on broadcasting has said that it is essential to avoid monopolization of prime time by foreign programs and that public affairs programs should be included among those shown during prime time. I think this is a feeling that all of us in parliament echo. The commission will accordingly be given a new power to regulate scheduling policy in relation to any category or categories of programs. This, we believe, will permit the implementation of the standing committee's wishes in this regard. The commission will not be able to tell an individual broadcaster to put on a particular program at a particular hour, but will be able to require complementary programming by competing stations and to insist on a reasonable proportion of prime time being given over to public affairs programs and true Canadian content.
I should also mention that the legislation indicates that community antenna television systems will also be subject to licensing by the commission. The conditions of licence, which will also be laid down by the C.R.C., will have to take into account the need for comprehensive and varied service. However, -and I think this should be made very clear-C.A.T.V. systems are quite different in many respects from other broadcasting operations, and thus we expect the regulatory commission's requirements for these systems to be quite different from those applied to what are regularly called broadcasting undertakings. It is appreciated that the C.A.T.V. operators are not normally program producers and therefore their obligations as regards Canadian content cannot be more than to carry all available Canadian channels in a particular area. Provision is made for the exemption of certain classes of community antenna from the licensing requirements, for example, the roof-top antenna on an apartment block, but in general the commission, when considering an application for a licence for one of these systems, will have to take the whole local situation into account, including the interests of the local broadcasters.
The wide powers given the commission to make regulations and determine conditions of licence can be effective only if the regulatory agency also has the power to impose significant penalties on those who fail to meet its requirements. Under the 1958 act a breach of B.B.G. regulations is an offence against the
November 1, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Criminal Code carrying a maximum penalty of $500 or three months imprisonment. I cannot foresee a situation where it is likely that a prison sentence would ever be imposed, and in the few prosecutions that have been undertaken the fines inflicted have been no more than $50 and in most cases $25.
Considering the nature of the offences involved and the potential damage to the public interest inherent in the violation of these regulations, we believe that it is necessary to have more adequate penalties if the commission's regulations are to command the proper respect by licencees. Accordingly the new legislation provides for fines on summary convictions up to a new maximum. I do not think it is ever to be expected that the maximum penalty would be levied, and certainly never in cases of minor infractions or accidental violations. But there could be violations of these regulations which are neither minor nor accidental, and if you want to prohibit something then you must impose a fine high enough to show that parliament is serious when it means to prohibit it. In the area of advertising regulations, for instance, I am told by my officials that as much as $240 is charged for a ten second commercial in prime time. One does not have to know much about the new mathematics to show that a broadcaster could make as much as $10,000 a week over and above his ordinary income just by slipping in one additional minute of advertising each day over and above what is permitted under the current regulations.
[DOT] (3:40 p.ra.)
I am not suggesting for a moment any present licencee is guilty of such conduct. In fact, I am assured by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that the prosecutions to date in this regard have dealt with minor, accidental infractions of commercial regulations, particularly ones that took place because of the system of measuring time by the "clock hour". They do not believe there is a predilection amongst Canadian broadcasters to deliberately break the law, particularly in order to obtain an illicit profit.
However, the potential for abuse is there and the regulations, I think, must therefore exist. I believe that the commission must possess powers which are sufficiently punitive to make sure no one will attempt to take this way, the short way, to additional profits. It should be noted that it will not be the commission itself, of course, which will impose fines. The commission will have to proceed in the ordinary way through the

courts, and it will be the courts that will be called upon to impose whatever fine is decided upon in the circumstances. The commission will be empowered to suspend or revoke licences, but only after a public hearing. It was, indeed, at the request of the C.A.B. initially that a scale of fines was placed within the new legislation, since it was indicated there was too abrupt a transmission from having a licence to suddenly having it suspended.
These are powerful sanctions and, there has been some question as to why they are not applied in the same way to the C.B.C. What would happen if you applied them to the C.B.C., particularly if you suspended or revoked a licence, would be that the public would be deprived in that area of access to the national broadcasting service. The bill therefore provides that if the C.B.C. fails to conform to its licence there will be a report made on the matter by the Canadian radio commission and that report will have to be tabled in parliament. I do not believe we should underestimate the efficacy of that sanction, for, if parliament agrees that the Canadian radio commission report is justified, it is clear that cause will have been established for the dismissal of those responsible within the corporation.


Mr. Lewis:: May I ask the minister a question? Even if parliament agrees there is no provision, is there, in the legislation which would enable the report to be lifted off the table?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It would be tabled and the subject would have to arise in debate, I suppose, perhaps on a supply motion. If the infraction were considerable I suppose the government might provide time. There is no such mechanism in this legislation and that would have to be taken care of by the rules of the house.


Mr. Fairweather:: It is really meaningless, then?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And anything in the broadcasting act would be meaningless with regard to the rules of the house.
The bill therefore provides that this report will be tabled in parliament. If it is tabled and it is demonstrated that the commission is correct and the C.B.C. is incorrect then, as I say, it will be indicated that those responsible will lose their positions. We hope that this will mean that the hope of the standing committee that the total delegation of authority over programming will end parliament's
November 1, 1967

frequent involvement with broadcasing matters. If the Canadian radio commission does its job properly it should be possible then to concentrate the attention of parliament as regards programming matters on failure to comply with the broadcasting policy which parliament itself has laid down.
The next principle on which I believe there is general agreement is that all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and in French and, in particular, to the national network service of the C.B.C. The principal limiting factor here, of course, is cost, for the smaller and more remote the community the higher the per capita cost of providing service. We are still a very long way from achieving complete coverage, although we are steadily moving ahead each year to cover more of the outlying areas. At present the C.B.C. still works on the formula under which an English speaking or French speaking community or group of 2,000 is entitled to television service and of 500 to radio service. The priorities are allocated in accordance with the lowest per capita cost of providing service. Moreover, in saying that the national network services should be available from coast to coast, it should not be supposed that this can be done within any reasonably foreseeable period of time except through the use of affiliate stations. In other words, it is not the intention of this legislation to indicate that the C.B.C. should start out today and set up nationally operated stations in all parts of Canada. Thus the declaration of individual rights to service through this legislation is necessarily qualified by reference to the availability of funds. It will be for parliament to determine the priorities to be accorded to these expenditures in relation to other urgent national needs.
As I have already said, the statutory declaration of policy includes a definition of the national broadcasting service to be provided by the C.B.C. No definition was attempted in the 1958 act, so it was left to the corporation itself to lay down the requirements for the national service, to lay out the rules for itself. This caused a certain ambiguity to be created since the authority of the B.B.G. over the corporation has been vitiated by this division of responsibility. Under the legislation now before the house, both the commission and the C.B.C. will be governed by a common definition for the purposes of the national broadcasting service as established in this legislation by parliament.
Provision is also made to give effect to the recommendation of the standing committee
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that there should be clearer recognition that the C.B.C. is the principal agency for carrying out public policy through broadcasting. The commission will accordingly be required to give priority to the needs of the national broadcasting service if and when these conflict with the interests of the private broadcasters. I would ask hon. members particularly to look at the wording of that section where the two words "objects" and "interests" are opposed. Any attempt to be precise in this matter would almost certainly be more limiting than a statement of general intention. There is no denying that the commission may from time to time be faced with very difficult problems to be resolved. However, in this connection I agree completely with the statement of the standing committee that the responsibility of the regulatory authority in the first instance should be to amplify the broad principles for Canadian broadcasting laid down by parliament.
There are two other aspects of national broadcasting policy to which I should like to refer very briefly. The first is that the broadcasting facilities which will be provided for educational purposes will be the subject, as I mentioned at the resolution stage, of a separate measure. It will be part of the broadcasting system as a whole and therefore will be subject to regulation and supervision by the Canadian radio commission.
The second point is that the commission should adapt its regulation and supervision of broadcasting to scientific and technical advances, the effects of which cannot be foreseen in detail at this time. In particular, it should be noted that the ground transmitting and receiving stations in connection with satellite operations will be subject to licensing, while an amendment to the Radio Act incorporated in this bill will extend the authority of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to radio apparatus on space craft under Canadian control. Another amendment to the Radio Act, which is relevant to both these points, provides for regulation of the technical requirements for radio apparatus offered for sale in Canada, as for instance a requirement that all television sets offered for sale should be capable of receiving u.h.f. as well as v.h.f. channels.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I should like to deal now with the constitution and powers of the Canadian radio commission, the regulatory authority which is to replace the Board of Broadcast Governors. However, before I say anything else I might
November 1, 19G7

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting say that the name "Canadian radio commission" seems to have aroused considerable comment. In the view of the government a new name for the regulatory authority is desirable to underline what we believe is an important change in climate and accent. Having decided that, Mr. Speaker, we searched for a name which would best represent the actual functions of this agency and which would be the same, at least so far as its initials are concerned, in both our official languages. I know that some people consider the word "radio" somewhat archaic in terms of today's broadcasting system, even though it can be defined in dictionary terms to embrace both radio and television. It may be that there is a more modern name which will meet our requirements, such as the proposed Canadian radio-television commission that has been suggested to me, or the Canadian communications commission. Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one is wedded to the name "Canadian radio commission" and I would be interested to hear any suggestions from the committee with respect to the name. At the same time members of the standing committee or later members in committee of the whole might wish to consider whether it is time to find a new and perhaps more streamlined name for the C.B.C., taking into account the same considerations I have mentioned in this respect.
Whatever the name, Mr. Speaker, the proposed commission will have wider powers than the current B.B.G. and it will be backed up with significant means of enforcement. These powers will be exercised for the sole purpose of implementing the broadcasting policy to be established by parliament in this bill. Obviously the C.R.C. will need, a little larger staff than the B.B.G. has, and this is one of the reasons for increasing the number of full time members from three to five.
There will also be a large increase in the number of matters which can be decided only after a public hearing. It is therefore proposed that hearings may be undertaken by small groups of members; it does not necessarily have to be the whole commission. However, no decisions are taken at hearings. They are to provide only the means for public discussion of licensing and other problems in different parts of the country and they would have to be reported back for decision.
Although the white paper proposed that there should be seven part time members and the standing committee recommended six, we have now on more mature consideration come to the conclusion that so small a number of part time members would not be sufficient to provide proper representation of public interests. It is therefore proposed in this bill that there should be ten part time members of the commission but that a quorum has to include at least three of the five full time members.
The government has been giving much consideration to the distribution of powers between the full time and the part time members, ranging from having no part time members to having part time members with the same powers as full time members. It will be recalled that the white paper proposed that the powers of the commission should be exercised by the full time members alone but after consultation with the part time members. The standing committee did not agree with this proposal and recommended that the part time members should have the right to vote. It was never the intention of the government that the part time members should be treated as no more than an advisory committee. After all, their purpose is to represent the public in various regions and walks of life. Having now had regard to the opinion of the standing committee, this bill provides a division of the powers between the full commission and the full time members, and I believe that this will give a balance of authority which will best fulfil the public interest.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the right to make regulations lies with the whole commission. That should not be underestimated as to importance, for the part time members will be sharing in the responsibility for establishing standards of programs, for regulating scheduling policy for classes or categories of programs, for controlling the nature and quantity of advertising, for prescribing the conditions for operating networks, and other important matters including the revocation of a broadcaster's licence.
However, Mr. Speaker, since in making appointments it is necessary to exclude from part time membership those who have a pecuniary interest in broadcasting, the full time members will represent the principal body of expert knowledge on the commission. It is therefore proposed that the regulatory power of the full commission can be exercised only on the recommendation of the full time members. This very practical requirement is designed to ensure that the full time members will never be placed in the position of having to administer a regulation carried

November 1, 1967

against their advice by the part time members which might prove in the event to be unworkable.
So far as the power to issue licences is concerned, the government is convinced that the public interest will best be served by reserving the power of decision to the full time members. As permanent statutory officials with security of tenure they should be in a better position to make objective judgments than the part time members who could be unduly influenced by local and sectional considerations. Nevertheless, the part time members will have an important role to play in participating in public hearings. It is essential that they should have free opportunity to express their views and to make representations on behalf of local and sectional interests when licensing decisions are under consideration. It is equally essential, Mr. Speaker, that the full time members should give full and careful attention to these representations before they arrive at licensing decisions. In licensing matters, therefore, and when suspension of a licence is under consideration, the full time members will be required to consult with the part time members before they conclude their deliberations.
There is one important matter with regard to the licensing power to which I should refer. It was stated in the white paper that the licensing power would be delegated to the regulatory authority-that was a proposal with which the standing committee concurred-but that provision would be made for appeals against licensing decisions to the governor in council. Although it has happened very seldom in the past that the recommendations of the B.B.G. have been rejected by the governor in council, the important thing to remember is that there have been occasions in the past when such recommendations were deemed to be contrary to the public interest, and it is certainly not without possibility that such a situation could occur again in the future.
On closer consideration, Mr. Speaker, it was concluded that formal appeals to the governor in council would not be practical, but it is proposed that the governor in council should have the power, within a period of 60 days after a decision by the commission, to set aside a licensing decision or to refer it back to the commission for another public hearing. It should be noted that this does not give the government any power to issue a licence, nor does it give the government any power to nominate an acceptable licensee.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
There is also a provision that any such decision by the government, and indeed any direction by the government to the commission, must be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette. Thus there will be no opportunity for undisclosed misuse of this power or for the exercise of hidden persuasion, since any action taken by the government under the powers accorded to it by this bill would immediately become public knowledge and open for parliamentary or public discussion. Among the matters to which this powerful sanction will apply will be the proposed authority to give directions for the pre-emption of time for broadcasting programs of peculiar Canadian significance or public interest.
On the subject of appeals, Mr. Speaker, the white paper proposed that there should be provision for appeals to the courts on questions of law but not of fact. The bill accordingly provides for appeals to the supreme court on questions of law or jurisdiction.
The transfer of the licensing authority to the regulatory body does not, of course, remove broadcasting from the necessity to comply with the technicalities governed by the Radio Act, for the administration of which the Minister of Transport is still responsible. The present procedure is that the Minister of Transport cannot issue a radio licence to a broadcasting station except on the recommendation of the B.B.G. and with the approval of the governor in council. Under this legislation it will still be absolutely essential that the construction and operations of broadcasting undertakings comply in all respects with the technical requirements of the Radio Act, and this has necessitated a reversal of the previous procedure.
Under the bill now before the house, Mr. Speaker, the commission, before issuing a licence, would have to be satisfied that the Minister of Transport has issued or will issue a technical construction and operating certificate under the Radio Act. That procedure is necessary in order to ensure that broadcasting undertakings in using the airwaves will not interfere with each other or with other radio traffic.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I would like to thank hon. members for bearing with me on such a lengthy statement. I now turn to part III of the bill which deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It may be a matter of surprise to hon. members that most of the changes from part II of the present act are matters only of detail or
3754	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting amendments in the interest of clarification or simplification. The reason for this is that there is not very much wrong with the provisions of the present act with regard to the powers of the C.B.C. The principal weakness of the 1958 act is its failure to establish a proper relationship between the corporation, the regulatory authority, and parliament. Thus the changes that will have the largest effect on the operations of the C.B.C. are those relating to the authority of parliament, the government, and the commission, which are set out in part II of the bill and with which I have already dealt.
The most important of these is, without doubt, the establishment of a statutory mandate for the national broadcasting service, a matter which was previously left to the discretion of the corporation itself to the exclusion of the B.B.G. Under the new legislation the commission's authority over the C.B.C. will be clearly defined and will be exercisable only by regulation or conditions of licence, all of which must conform to the broad policy enacted by parliament. The standing committee agreed that the C.B.C. should be subject to such regulation and control on the understanding that this does not imply any power to give directions in respect of specific programming except by general regulation or conditions of licences. The only exception to this is the reserve power to direct the pre-emption of broadcasting time in an emergency or for special purposes, to which I have already referred.
The standing committee also stipulated that the responsibility for programming must rest with the C.B.C. board and management but also recommended that a reconstituted B.B.G. should provide an assessment of our broadcasting system. All these requirements are met precisely in the bill. If the commission is of the opinion that the C.B.C. has not complied with the conditions of its licences-and it is to be remembered that these must conform to the policy enacted by parliament-a report must be made to parliament so that the alleged failure of the C.B.C. in its responsibility to parliament may be openly discussed and adjudicated.
Let us see how this system might work if hon. members were dissatisfied with some particular or general aspect of C.B.C. programming. All that would be necessary would be to call upon the commission, through the minister, to report whether the corporation had in fact failed to comply with regulations or the conditions of its licences. If

DEBATES	November 1, 1967
it has so failed the C.B.C. board and management should be called to account and, if necessary, dismissed. Should the commissioner's report show that the C.B.C. had not committed any breach of the regulations or conditions of licence, then it is clear that the blame, if any, would be attributable to the commission, for the only possible conclusion would be that the commission had failed to interpret the intentions of parliament correctly in framing the regulations or conditions of licence. There is reason to believe that this procedure would eliminate a good deal of parliamentary discussion on programming matters, while still affording more practical means for parliament to assert its ultimate authority over programming, to be fully informed on matters which appear to be contrary to statutory policy, and to pass judgment on whoever may be shown to have been responsible. This is a very complex matter and members of parliament have been concerned about how parliament in that sense can control this important corporation.
What we are faced with here, Mr. Speaker, is a paradoxical conflict between two perfectly legitimate lines of thought. On the one hand, ever since the inception of the public broadcasting system in Canada almost everybody has agreed that the responsibility for programming must be left to the C.B.C., which must be totally protected from outside influences and pressures. On the other hand, almost everybody at one time or another, including many hon. members, has been shocked or infuriated by some aspect of C.B.C. programming, and the natural reaction is to demand that something should be done about it. The plain fact is that in broadcasting, more than in almost any other field of activity, absolute delegation of authority and responsibility is inevitable. In news and public affairs broadcasts, where urgency and topicality are often paramount reliance must be placed on the judgment of the individual producer or announcer, and his judgment must often be exercised instantaneously. On the entertainment side the choice of programs is very often a matter of personal taste, which can never be absolute or tied to precise standards. What is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me.
For these reasons, for its performance and reputation the C.B.C. as a whole necessarily depends on the judgment and taste of a host of individuals who must be given the maximum practical freedom of expression if the corporation is to fulfil its duty to provide a
November 1, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the management of broadcasting operations. This must be read in the context of the definition of broadcasting which is incorporated in the bill. The effect is that by law the executive vice president will be responsible for all the production and transmission of programs, that is to say, for the technical operations of the corporation and everything that goes out over the air. This is a less comprehensive responsibility than that of the president and does not include such functions as, for instance, public relations and accounting, which can be handled by other officers reporting directly to the president.
It is also worth noting that although the executive vice president is responsible to the president for the management of broadcasting operations, the authority of the president in this regard will be limited by law to policies prescribed by the corporation, that is to say, the board of directors.
When I was addressing the house a week or so ago on the resolution introducing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the government's intention to bring in separate legislation later in this session to provide for the financial requirements of the C.B.C. on a five year formula. I should like to take this opportunity to reassure hon. members that there is nothing in the bill now under consideration which commits parliament one way or another on this matter, although the financial clauses of the bill do provide a base on which formula financing could be established.
These, then, are the principles on which this bill is based and the proposals in it by which those principles are translated into action. I should like to thank again all the people who have been responsible-and they have been many in the two years, at least, during which I have been in charge of this slow birth-particularly hon. members of the house and members of the standing committee.


An hon. Member:: Midwife, but no mother.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the Canada Pension Plan was my baby and I do not intend to have one every two years. It is too difficult, especially when they are as complex as this.
Perhaps I can say one more word before sitting down. It seems to me that although this is a complex measure we have arrived at something very close to a consensus. I believe the legislation is much clearer than the present act and represents a considerable improvement on it, though it will not, of course, settle the question of broadcasting in Canada for all time.


For one thing, we are very close to the leap into the future which is foreshadowed by the satellites and all this will entail. We do not know how long the kind of broadcasting which is familiar to all of us will continue to exist. We hope the bill before us will at least last into the new era. The provisions and principles outlined in it will have to be fleshed out by those appointed to the major full and part time positions on both the commission and the corporation. It will be their capabilities, their attitudes and their efforts which will make or break broadcasting in the future.
I know that all hon. members join with me in the hope that we shall shortly be able to announce the appointment of the very best and most qualified people for these positions. This means people who are ready to make sacrifices-not just financial ones-and in the particular case of the president occupy what has for many years been a hot seat, and do this not only for the benefit of Canadian broadcasting, but for the sake of the growth and strength of this country. I believe that if we can obtain the services of such people, hon. members will agree that the bill before us provides them with a clear and positive framework within which to operate and to work toward the goal of a strong and unified Canada with the full co-operation and good will of the House of Commons. It is a goal which we all share as one which will lead to a great future for this country. Having all these things in mind I recommend this legislation to the favourable consideration of hon. members.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to compliment the minister on a most helpful explanation of the legislation. As one interested in the reform of the procedures of parliament I think she would agree it is a mistake-and this does not detract from the merits of her speech-to introduce a bill of such major importance on a Wednesday afternoon when the number of speakers is obviously sharply limited. For instance, unless I as spokesman for the official opposition sit down now, no one else will be able to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A breathtaking response. But this is an important consideration.
I would not be fulfilling my duty if I were to agree with everything the minister said, nor would she expect me to. I do agree with her that the intent of parliament is contained
November 1, 1967

All in all it has been a most extraordinary game of tag conducted by a rather dispirited and out of breath Prime Minister whose every move is known in the corridors of power but not always, as the minister admitted yesterday, by the Secretary of State herself. I wish to be fair to her. I think it is time that she should be given a chance to be "it" in the game of tag, or perhaps the name of the game is "blindman's buff" and not a game of tag after all. I sincerely hope that an end will soon come to this most extraordinary search for talent. Indeed, as she interjected in yesterday's debate, the minister placed the blame where I know it belongs, in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada.
In speaking of appointments I should like to say I am sure the public will be anxious to know whether the staffing of the new regulatory commission will be by Canadians who have experience in the field of broadcasting or who have demonstrated that they have a real contribution to make to the board. The grubby antics which surrounded the proposed move of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto have meant that the public is more than a little suspicious of the true independence of the membership of the Board of Broadcast Governors. Here, of course, I am not criticizing the permanent members and staff, but rather those useful extra supernumeraries who are added to the board at the pleasure of the governor in council from time to time and whose knowledge of broadcasting is rarely extensive.
Part of the reason a helpful discussion of the implications of this bill is difficult is that two major areas

I admit that the minister underlined them but they are still important -educational television and the proposed five year C.B.C. budgeting, are left for future legislative action. This makes the debate a bit unreal. Because the views of the minister and the government on these issues are largely unknown, it is rather extraordinary to be attempting to give a considered opinion on the whole issue of broadcasting without seeing those pieces of legislation. As an example, the minister herself mentioned satellites. Can we be assured-and I hope we can-that the government has by now approached a responsible international agency in order to reserve space in space? In other words, have we taken a lease on a part of a satellite so that Canadian broadcasting purposes can be fulfilled? I hope when the time comes that Canadians themselves have a satellite or a share in one that it will be a

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting public, or a mixture of a public and private, endeavour with control in the public domain.
The white paper states on page 14 that the government accepts the recommendation of the advisory committee that the C.B.C. be financed by way of a five year statutory grant. I do not know why that is not in the bill. I wonder whether the government has had a change of heart in respect of these recommendations. I think that a good many of us, and perhaps the government too, have had serious misgivings about the five year plan because it may well mean a diminution of responsible control. I do not mean narrow nitpicking but rather responsible control of the financing of this corporation on an annual basis by parliament.
Educational television in Canada is at-I was going to say at the threshold of time but that is a cliche which I should like to avoid-the beginning of an exciting era. The subject is to be studied by the broadcasting committee, but it is too bad that the new bill could not have covered this new development also.
As one example of the problem, we do not know whether the government is going to licence v.h.f. or u.h.f.-these notes were prepared before the minister's announcement but I am delighted to see that it will be mandatory for all manufacturers of television sets to provide for ultra high frequency reception.
When the members of the committee were studying the white paper they were deeply concerned about the regulation and supervision of programming. They were of the opinion that the regulatory authority should not be involved in the corporation's day to day decision making or in policy making concerned with the internal workings of the corporation. This must be the responsibility of the C.B.C. board of directors. The responsibility of the B.B.G. in the first instance would be to amplify the broad principles for Canadian broadcasting laid down by parliament and to set general standards following public hearings. I am quoting from the report. The legislation must say, with a good deal of precision, what these principles are as they apply to the various components of the system, both public and private. Obviously the most important of them will concern programming. In the case of the C.B.C., responsibility for programming must rest with its board and management.
Novembei 1, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The report also states that as "auditor general" of broadcasting the B.B.G. should assess the performance of all components of the system under its supervision, including the C.B.C. In assessing the C.B.C., the B.B.G. should take into account the financial resources available to the corporation, its mandate and its vital importance as the prime instrument of national policy in broadcasting.
The governor in council, rather than parliament, is given too much power in this bill. In legislation dealing with such a powerful medium of information and propaganda it is of the utmost importance, and parliament has a clear duty to insist, that every evidence of unwarranted government interference should be removed. May I cite three examples which come to mind. First, there is the obligation placed on the minister to be arbiter in any conflict between the C.R.C. and the C.B.C. Second, there is the right given to the governor in council to pre-empt broadcast time if it is decided that the program is of special importance to all Canadians. Third, there is the right given to the governor in council to overrule grants of licences. I admit that the minister has given an interesting explanation of this latter provision.
In the case of a pre-emption of the airwaves it is my opinion for what it is worth, that regulations should be prepared which spell out clearly and carefully the circumstances in which this extraordinary power will be authorized. I would much prefer that this be done by the regulatory authority which must be privy to national emergencies and as sensitive to them as is the governor in council.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Another obvious improvement in the bill would be a provision requiring reasons for decisions of the regulatory authority being made public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I hope the minister, who is a distinguished counsel, will agree with me on this. I hope at a later stage to produce an amendment making that compulsory. It will become increasingly important for those who have applications or matters before the C.R.C. to have some jurisprudence, not in any sense to hamstring the authority but rather to ensure that full disclosure is made of the rationale of decisions. This is a reform that I am sure will commend itself to the minister.

There is a further serious departure from the recommendations of the parliamentary committee's report in clause 5 dealing with the setting up of the regulatory authority. The white paper, paragraph 4, said in dealing with this subject:
The extended powers and responsibilities of the hoard will, in the opinion of the government, require the attention of more full time members than at present, but there should continue to be a number of part time members sufficient to provide a broad cross-section of Canadian opinion.
The parliamentary committee on page 8 of its report said that it approves of the licensing procedure, etc., but it believes that the authority of the board should not only reside in the full time members but part time members should have the right to vote. We also recommended that the total number of members be 11. I am not going to play a numbers game with the minister, whether it should be 7, 8, 10, or 11. I have not given very much attention to the adequacy of the number, but I believe that the full board should be part of the decision making process.
I will be anxious to hear the minister's explanation for ignoring

I suppose she has some explanation-the recommendation of the parliamentary committee which made, I think, a pretty careful examination and study of what I believe to be the essentially undemocratic proposals in the white paper. As an aside, may I interject that it is curious how often governments and their legislative draftsmen prefer the less democratic way of doing things. There seems to be an innate suspicion of parliament itself in a good deal of the drafting of provisions for orders in council and so on. However, I suppose that this statement is made more easily when sitting on the opposition benches than when one is in the seats of power.
The insistence by the committee that the right to vote be given to all members of the regulatory authority was not lightly taken. As was pointed out in a signed article by Mr. Claude Ryan in Le Devoir of October 19, and I have done my best to put this into passable English, "As we know, the bill puts aside this wish of the committee. It comes back, by a 'bias' which will not deceive an experienced observer, to the first idea of the government. As all permanent members of the C.R.C. will be named by the government, and subject to renewal of their mandate, there is evident risk that the independence of the C.R.C. will be reduced as much."
I believe this bill should go back to the parliamentary committee because in so many
November 1, 1967

ways it differs from the report of the special committee. Here I should like to suggest, and I do so quite sincerely, that it be sent to committee before approval in principle. The committee has the competence and ability, I say with respect, to improve this bill and make it a more democratic evocation of what the policy of the government should be. I think it would be a landmark in the long and perilous journey toward parliamentary reform if the Secretary of State would agree to what I suggest is an imaginative and proper procedure. If we really mean that the parliamentary committee system is to be effective, the minister will jump to accept this suggestion. I assure her that it is not a delaying tactic; it is a reforming tactic. It is not a device to kill the bill; it is a genuine attempt to use the latent talent and experience of parliamentarians for the improvement of the bill at an early stage of its passage through the house.
Just as surely as the bill is approved in principle on second reading, we will be told in committee: No, you cannot have any amendments; you have approved this bill in principle; be good boys, go away and don't bother us. The better procedure, and it will come some day-I should like to see it come on this bill-is for bills such as this to be considered before and not after second reading.
I leave it to other spokesmen of this party, and I suppose other parties, to discuss the helpful suggestions of the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists who have such a stake in a program for better broadcasting. The list of artists, writers, actors and other broadcasting professionals who have had to seek employment outside Canada is a veritable honour roll of talent. But unlike most honour rolls, the ACTRA list is made up of living people, people who want to work in Canada and contribute to its cultural greatness, people who seek quality of content and share aspirations for promoting the unique quality of the Canadian contribution to our national expression. If we in parliament, those in the new regulatory authority, in the C.B.C. and the private networks, fail them now-this is perhaps being dramatic-I say that our children will live to rue the day for we shall have dissipated our heritage.
Within the ACTRA submission to members of parliament there are a couple of proposed amendments that I hope the minister will accept without too much debate. One which is

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to be found at the bottom of page two of ACTRA's submissions is as follows:
-we recommend the addition of sub-subsection (v) to read:
co-operate with the Canadian Council, the National Arts Centre, the National Film Board, the Canadian Film Development Corporation and other such bodies in the encouragement of Canadian cultural expression in all its forms.
The minister more than any other person knows of the proliferation of culutral activity in this country. It seems to me it is time this proliferation was harnessed, not in the restrictive sense but in the sense that one area of cultural betterment will know what another area is doing. There should be a cross-fertilization, if I can use that term after the- well, I had better leave it there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will make him pay me a commission.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We will speak about that later, I expect.
C.B.C. radio at last seems to know its purpose. It seems more free of the fetters of commercialism and it is all the better for it. Sometimes I wonder, when attacks are levelled against public broadcasting, what would happen in this country if very early on a Monday morning all of C.B.C.'s television and radio broadcasting closed down and we then asked those in favour of R. B. Bennett's vision of public broadcasting to stand up. I think we would then have a real understanding of what this great national service has done for the country.
I would also have liked to speak about the great experiment starting this Saturday night in the United States. They are finally catching up with us. Because of the findings of the Carnegie commission on educational television and the $10 million grant from the Ford foundation, the first network series of public broadcasting will take place in the U.S.A. It will take place because the private interests have failed the viewers in that country and because people who are interested in this great facility want to do something to improve its content. I think that Mr. White, Mr. Murrow and hundreds of others have an understanding-and I would like to pay the minister the compliment of saying that I think she also and many others in parliament have an understanding-of the obligation that we have to the country to ensure that by standing for what could be the splendid purposes of this media we help to teach, to illuminate, yes, even to inspire.


Mr. R. W. Priilie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was criticized when she introduced the resolution preceding the bill for not giving us very much information

DEBATES	November 1, 1967
and for speaking too briefly. Today she gave us a very full explanation, perhaps too full for my purposes because as a result I have only four minutes left in which to speak today. However, I congratulate her for her speech. It was very comprehensive and explained much of the thinking behind the new legislation.
Let me say first that I think the bill is generally good. This does not mean amendments will not be suggested when we get down to the clause by clause study in committee. There are many points in the bill which I think bear looking into. The whole question of the relationship of the Canadian radio commission and the C.B.C. is certainly one of them. The position of the minister with regard to the C.B.C. and the regulatory authority is another very important one. However, the bill is a good one in many ways. It lays out the objectives of broadcasting in Canada. I cannot find very much to quarrel with there. It also gives the C.B.C. particular responsibilities. One of its responsibilities is to promote national unity in the country, and one can hardly be against that.
However, in that connection there is one fear in the back of my mind. I have noticed that on the part of members of this house, French speaking members in particular, there has been a great deal of criticism of the French network of the C.B.C. We hear the charge that it is riddled with separatism and that these people are promoting disunity in the country. This may or may not be true. I simply do not know. But I would not want to see a witch-hunt started because there is something in the bill saying that national unity must be promoted which would enable the government to go to anyone who was not doing exactly what was wanted and say: You are not promoting national unity; you are a separatist and therefore you are out. There is a possible danger there. However, one cannot quarrel with the aim of promoting national unity in Canada.
There is also the declaration that the airwaves are public property. Legally there has never been any doubt about this, but perhaps those people who are given the privilege of using the airwaves need to be reminded of this. I notice that in Great Britain this year some of the broadcasters were so reminded. A number of the people who had permission to operate under the independent television authority had some of their rights withdrawn. This was a reminder to those companies-
November 1, 19G7


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -that they cannot print money any more.


Robert William Prittie: I also believe a former Canadian lost some of his rights in regard to television in Scotland. However, it is a useful reminder that the airwaves are public property and are subject to review.
I am also pleased to see in the bill the statement which was recommended by the broadcasting committee about the pre-eminence of the public system. It recognizes the existence of the private system. The public part of the system has been important in the past in Canada and I think it will have to be the most important in the future.
There has been some criticism that the new broadcasting authority has too much power. I do not agree with that at all. Experience in other countries shows that a broadcasting authority has to have legal power and, what is more important, has to use its power. The United States had a very sad experience with the federal communications commission and there has been a great deal of criticism of that organization. Some people have wondered why it bothers to exist at all, because it has simply reflected the views of the people in the industry rather than those of the public. I think we have always had a stronger authority in Canada. It needs to be stronger and it also needs to exercise that authority.
Before you see the clock, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one other point. No matter what kind of broadcasting legislation we pass in the house, much of the success of broadcasting in Canada will depend upon the people appointed to carry out the job. That goes almost without saying. I should like to conclude with one comment to the minister. The Ottawa Citizen of October 19 made a very good point in its leading editorial entitled "Can We Keep Politics Out?". In the last paragraph it said:
In any case the appointments to the C.B.C. must be of the highest quality. The unfortunate precedent set in the Board of Broadcast Governors, where past service to the party in power is the chief qualification for membership, should be renounced from the inception of the new body. Otherwise, we are only playing alphabet soup with a meaningless change of initials.
I commend that to the minister. I will have more to say about this subject when I have the opportunity to resume my speech. In the meantime, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration
Old Age Security Act of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.
o (5:00 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure which would allow the husband or the wife of a person who is entitled to a pension under the Old Age Security Act to become eligible at the same time even if his or her age does not meet the requirements of the act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in introducing this motion is to enable the house to act on a shortcoming of our social legislation which fails, in certain cases, to grant the wife the same rights as the husband. The motion reads as follows:
In the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure which would allow the husband or the wife of a person who is entitled to a pension under the Old A.ge Security Act to become eligible at the same time even if his or her age does not meet the requirements of the act.
It is known that in this country-and the same is true all over the world-it is customary for a man to take as a wife someone younger than he is. It may be a good way to ensure superiority over the other sex.
While I did not make any extensive research on the subject-besides, I do not know of any definite statistical data-in order to determine to what extent the wife is younger than her husband, I made a few phone calls at random, and out of 20 families interviewed, 18 wives were younger than their husbands. This means, therefore, that the ratio of that marital status is quite high.
Since I came to the House of Commons more than five years ago, I have met people from every level of society, but especially those faced with financial problems who find it hard to make both ends meet after retirement, particularly when there is only one cheque at the end of the month to support two persons during the next thirty days.
I have received many letters from my constituents asking me to appeal on their behalf to the federal or provincial governments, as the case may be. We wifi admit that the $75 cheque received by the husband, and which

November 1, 1967
Old Age Security Act now, for almost a year, reaches sometimes $105, is inadequate to pay the rent, the fuel, the electricity, the telephone, the food, the clothing, the medical bills, the entertainment, and so on.
When we happen to assist them in their budget, as I have done myself so many times, we easily realize that they cannot possibly live decently with so little, mainly when a retired couple is involved.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that when our workers, farmers, in short all middle class people, get to the retirement age, few of them have managed to set aside a reserve which will allow them to face the difficult years of retirement.
The 1966 December issue of the Canadian Worker reads as follows:
-according to the 1961 Canadian census figures, a third of the 2,720,276 Canadian families, with the head of the family earning a salary, live in poverty.
Also in the May 1967 issue of this magazine, Mr. Emile Gosselin, an incumbent professor at the Department of Industrial Relations in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Montreal, who headed a survey called "The Third Solitude", defined poverty in the following terms:
"Poverty is the status of people whose needs, as deemed necessary in terms of the standards and values defined by their physical environment, cannot be reasonably satisfied, because of resources insufficiency. Needs and services deemed necessary, under these standards, to minimum adequate living conditions are unavailable to the poor and beyond their material conditions; they cannot, therefore, be provided by means of the resources available to the poor."
A little further in the same article, we can read this:
-1,032,000 people, of 48.6 per cent of the total population of the metropolitan area, who are living in misery, poverty and deprivation, or whose living conditions are precarious or marginal.
And it continues:
More than 55,800 families out of 217,000, or 20 per cent of the families in the city of Montreal are plunged into poverty and more than 27,000 families in the suburbs, or 14 per cent also live in poverty. For the metropolitan area, that percentage is 17 per cent of the families and 20 per cent of the population.
Besides the families living on less than the vital minimum "needed" for a bearable social and human life, there are still in the city of Montreal 50,000 families, or an additional 18 per cent who live in deprivation and which "a simple recession or any unemployment which goes on ever so little can plunge into a state of poverty, which was their lot during the depression". In the suburbs, 29,000 families, or nearly 15 per cent of the population, live in deprivation.

Therefore, this means, Mr. Speaker, that for all those people with a low income-I gave the figures for the Montreal area, but I think that the same proportion could easily be found in practically all urban centres and even in most rural areas in Canada-it is useless to think of saving money for their old age. Besides, in view of the personal income tax and the taxes of all kinds that a worker pays during his lifetime, it seems to me that the government has the duty to give retired people a little social justice, because I think that refusing to recognize the same rights to a married couple at the time of retirement represents a social injustice that should no longer be tolerated in a country which prides itself on its progress in the field of social justice.
If this motion were passed, Mr. Speaker, the resulting act would therefore enable the wife, who is younger than her husband, to receive her own old age pension when he retires, even if she has not reached retirement age as stipulated in the act.
It might be added here that the government could, in agreement with the provinces, pass a similar law with regard to old age assistance when the husband, for instance, is declared disabled or blind.
And so, many financial difficulties would be spared these couples, because women have trouble finding work even at an earlier age than men. At fifty five, and often much earlier, even if work is available, her health often does not allow it.
In a study published a couple of years ago, this is what the National Welfare Council had to say:
The inadequacy of the financial means of old people is even better illustrated by the data on revenue by age group. The average yearly income of men in the high sixties falls by slices of slightly more than $2,000 per year to approximately $1,500 per year when they reach 70 or over, and settles at approximately $900 somewhat before 90. For the women, the situation is even more precarious.
It is already rather precarious for men but for women, the situation is still worse.
They have an average income of slightly less than $500 at the end of their sixties; this income increases to about $800 at 70 and slightly over and remains almost level from then on. The poverty of the average old woman is all the greater in that she tends to live longer than man in similar circumstances; she makes up an increasing proportion of old people in the last 10 years of life. As a result, the situation is particularly difficult for the majority of old women whatever their age group-
November 1, 1967

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It might be objected that if legislation to this end, were to be passed, it would cost several million dollars each year to the treasury.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it would increase the budget of the National Health and Welfare Department. If we stop to consider the dollar sign, this motion will obviously not go very far, but we should rather consider whether it is possible to supply the goods and services which these new pensioners will require. I have no doubt that Canadian producers could supply and could meet the demand of all those who would benefit from legislation that might follow this motion now under consideration.
So, Mr. Speaker, we must stop and look at the problem of the third age of the females of the species and we should look upon it as a human problem which demands a humane solution.
I do not doubt that hon. members in this house tonight will support this motion and I leave it up to them to express their views.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion we have before us, moved by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure which would allow the husband or the wife-
And the hon. member spoke mostly of the wife, but the motion mentions the spouse.
-of a person who is entitled to a pension under the Old Age Security Act to become eligible at the same time even if his or her age does not meet the requirement of the act.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion of the hon. member deserves the attention of this house but I think also that we should study it and consider why the Old Age Security Act has been established in Canada. When this legislation was voted by parliament, it was intended to allow elderly people-at the inception the minimum age was 70 and more, but it is now 68-to have and maintain a definite income.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, that is, since December 20, 1966, the house has granted a guaranteed income supplement to the extent of $30 per month, thus ensuring any person of 68 and over a minimum annual income of $1260.
It is also known that parliament has amended the Old Age Security Act by providing an automatic increase proportionate to the increased cost of living and, as
Old Age Security Act announced recently in a joint release by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), as from January 1, 1968, the old age security pension, as well as the supplementary pension, will go up by 2 per cent, which means that since that legislation was passed in 1952, pensions have gone from $40 to $75; in addition, and as from January 1, 1968, those pensions will increase by $1.50 per month, and the supplement will reach $30.60 per month for certain persons instead of $30.
The house also passed in December 1966 a comprehensive medicare legislation, which will come into force on July 1, 1968.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, some will object that only if provinces are individually adopting that plan according to the provisions of the federal legislation, will that system be implemented. We must remember that since parliament adopted the Canada Pension Plan, residence requirements have been made more flexible.
It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to assess the number of married couples where the wife or the husband does not have the age required by the act to receive this pension. If the motion introduced by the member for Chapleau, were agreed to, would this amendment to the old age security act be on a universal basis, or would it be necessary for the departmental officials to make investigations concerning those families and I would even say in separate homes, to ensure that their request meets the requirements and is justified, because there could be cases where either the husband or the wife-according to figures mentioned by the member-especially the wife, would be 45 or 50 years old only, and would be eligible to a pension under the Old Age Security Act?
Also, if parliament is justified, Mr. Speaker, to agree to the motion of the hon. member, why not include any single person who is not old enough to be entitled to old age security but is in want, since he also would have reasons to expect such a pension?
We could also include in this category widows aged 60 to 68.
As the hon. member for Chapleau knows, I agree that in Quebec a widow or an unmarried woman between 60 and 65 who is in need may receive a welfare allowance.
Mr. Speaker, I also know many couples where the wife is younger, and the families I have in mind right now have urgent financial needs. The scope of the Canada Assistance
376S

November 1, 1967
Old Age Security Act Plan was extended in 1966 by the house to help even more people receiving an old age assistance pension, the blind, the disabled or those receiving unemployment assistance, including needy mothers and their families, children getting social assistance payments. Moreover, needy people can benefit from a joint medical expense program, because one knows that under the plan the contribution of the federal government amounts to 50 per cent.
The hon. member told us that we should not only consider the cost of this project but that we should also take into account human misery and the human being. However, I think that consideration of the cost is of prime importance since those cases can sometimes be assisted by other means. Such a motion might be passed and I sincerely admit that I am quite in sympathy with it but, in several cases, it would mean a duplication of effort and it would also add rather heavy expenses to the federal budget. I say then that the cost is very important since, in the 1967-68 budget, the estimated expenditures for the payment of pensions to old people and for the guaranteed supplement, amounts to $1.4 billion. To support those figures, I refer to question No. 485 placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle) and to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) answered on October 25 last as follows, and I quote:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
1.	How many persons are receiving old age pensions (a) in Canada ...
Answer: 1,241,261.
2.	How many of the pensioners are receiving the supplement of $30.00 per month (a) in Canada ...
Answer: 435,284.
3.	How many are receiving only a portion of this supplement (a) in Canada ...
Answer: 265,967.
As I was saying earlier, if this motion is passed by the house, we should also think of needy bachelors and widows who are not old enough to be eligible for old age security.
I have made inquiries and I have been told that to provide this assistance would cost over $300 million a year. The hon. member for Chapleau might perhaps say that there is no need to raise taxes in order to cover this expenditure, but merely to turn to the Bank of Canada. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to quote two paragraphs from a speech made by the French minister of economics and finance, Mr. Michel Debre, in

Rio de Janeiro on September 26, 1967, at an annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. When speaking of additional credit, he said:
It is true that no credit system can ever entirely satisfy the needs of young countries and, generally speaking, of countries whose rapid development has top social priority.
How can one think that the artificial creation of paper money can be a solution? To hand out small amounts of money does not solve anything, and to give out large sums would soon cause incredible upheavals the first victims of which would be the developing countries.
In line with the motion presented by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), there is another aspect of social security which might have priority over that suggested by the hon. member and, even if this priority is very important-


Gérard Laprise: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gaston Clermont: Yes, certainly.


Gérard Laprise: The hon. member has quoted a statement made by a minister of finance of France. I do not know if he wants to connect this statement with the ideas put forth by the Social Credit party. And I will have him know that never, under any circumstances, has Social Credit ever called for the creation of an artificial currency.


Gaston Clermont: No, but Social Credit has called for a national discount.


Gérard Laprise: That is not artificial money.


Gaston Clermont: I have accepted the question. But I remember very well certain interventions in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs last year when we were revising the bank charter. I remember these interventions and to me, that also meant easier money.
I was going to say, before being interrupted by the hon. member for Chapleau, that, in the field of social security, I feel that priority should also be given to the matter of family allowances.
To my mind, a government should assume its responsibilities toward society as a whole, toward every population sector, and this is not always easy. We should not, however, put too heavy a burden on taxpayers who try to provide for their personal and family needs. I sympathize with the motion of the hon. member, but the Old Age Security Act was voted by the Canadian parliament in
November 1, 19S7

37S7
order to assist the aged, and other means of assistance are actually available for those in need that do not qualify for the old age security program, such as the Canada Assistance Plan, for instance.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the principle of the motion presented by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise). Let me make it clear that if the principle were translated into legislation certain details would have to be worked out and certain limitations would have to be accepted. However, it is not an effective answer to the problem raised by the hon. member, nor is it an answer for the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) to wander all over the social security field in order to find some basis on which to say that we should not consider this proposition.
I recognize the suggestion by the hon. member for Labelle that without certain age limitations some rather strange situations could develop. We might have the story book experience of an old man marrying a teenager who would then receive the pension. But let us not get deflected by that kind of an argument. The hon. member for Chapleau does not want that; neither is he concerned about the 40-year old individuals mentioned by the hon. member for Labelle. What my hon. friend from Chapleau is concerned about is the standard, usual case in our society where a husband is two or three years older than the wife, or at least two or three years older than her stated age-


An hon. Member:: You mean four years older.


Mr. Knowles:: Someone has suggested four years older. Are there any higher bidders? In any event the husband is usually the breadwinner, and in many cases the husband can go on pension at age 68. But because his wife is only 64 or 65 there is no possibility of her receiving the old age security pension and, as has been pointed out, only if dire poverty is involved and the wife is 65 can she apply for old age assistance. However, in my experience it is not good to have one member of a couple on a pension without a means test and the other on a pension with a means test.
It is my suggestion that we do not get involved in the unusual cases, that we not become concerned about the details the hon, member has not written into his resolution, but that we look squarely at the normal
Old Age Security Act problem that arises when the breadwinner goes on pension and the other member of the couple is a year or two short of pensionable age. Sometimes it is the wife who is the older one; sometimes it is the wife who is the breadwinner. In all cases it seems to me that there is merit in the proposition that a retired couple, within certain age limits, should get the pension for both of them. This could be achieved by fixing a minimum age perhaps 60, below which a pension would not be paid, or by determining a margin between the husband's age and the wife's age. Or it could be solved by deciding that pensions for women should be paid at the age of 60.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In any event, I agree with the hon. member for Chapleau that there is a real problem here. It is not only a problem of economic need; it is one which relates to our way of life. And just as we have argued in favour of this principle in the past I should like to indicate our support for the proposition that is placed before us in this motion.
I was a little surprised that the hon. member for Labelle should have thought that the way in which to answer these points was to tell us of all the things the Liberal government has done in the old age pension field and, of course, to indicate to us that everything was wonderful. In particular, I was surprised he should have made such a point out of the fact that the government will be increasing the old age security pension in January under the automatic clause in the act. That clause is a good one; it is a good principle to have recognized. But I suggest that when the hon. member's constituents eventually get an increase of $1.50 a month he will not be deluged with mail thanking him for what the government has done. As a matter of fact I had a letter the other day from a woman in Nova Scotia asking for my advice in connection with the $1.50 which she will be getting in January. She says: "I shall be able to buy either a toothbrush or a tube of toothpaste. I cannot buy both. Which do you recommend?"
The hon. member for Labelle also gave as his answer to the request made from this side, the fact that the government had passed medicare legislation. I think any boasting about medicare legislation should at least be delayed until we see whether the provinces take up the legislation on July 1, 1968, or whether they are discouraged from doing so by the kind of talk we are hearing these

November 1, 1967
Old Age Security Act days from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
Another argument which the hon. member from Labelle used was that if we paid pensions to married women who were two or three years younger than their husbands, why should we not pay them to single women of the same age. Well, why not? On many occasions some of us have advocated setting the eligible age for old age pensions at 65 for men and 60 for women. In other words, the problems which the hon. member raised do not set aside the points which were brought forward by the hon. member for Chapleau. Rather, they simply pose other problems which should be dealt with.
I wish to say, therefore, that I think it was a good idea for the hon. member for Chapleau to raise this matter. I think it is good that we should be called upon to discuss the whole question of the needs and problems of our older people. One of the unfortunate things about parliament in 1967 is that under the leadership of the present government, if you can call it leadership, the idea has been spread around that the pension problem has been solved and that it can be forgotten for at least a few years. It has not been solved. These people need higher pensions; they need pensions free of the means test.
As I say, I think any legislation based on this resolution ought to have some minimum age or certain protective clauses in it. But as far as the principle is concerned it is a good one and I am happy to indicate our support.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, after having carefully considered the resolution of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), we come to the conclusion that it is of course a bill which reflects a magnanimity which is all to the honour of the mover.
Nobody wishes to cast any doubt on the generosity of his intention. I think such a proposal deserves to be seriously examined, but there is a long way to go before we proceed to pass such a bill. There are provisions of the budget which must be considered before we can say whether this proposal can be immediately approved.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is a good idea to point out in passing, without introducing political partisanship in this debate, that our good friends of the Ralliement des Creditistes are those who advocate most vigourously at all times that

taxes must be cut and even abolished if possible. But, on the other hand, they are the first to propose measures sometimes expensive, and prohibitive, and those who are responsible for the government feel a certain regret, a certain nostalgia, because if one day-I cannot see that it will happen-we were in opposition-I repeat that it will not happen-we would be so happy to harass the government with all kinds of requests.
You may be sure, Mr. Speaker, that if, 25 or 30 years from now, circumstances have us in the opposition, we will be the first to beg, to show great generosity, to ask the government without cease to do more for the pensioners and to ease as much as possible the taxpayers' burden. Then also, 30 or 35 years from now, the gentlemen opposite will say: Live up to your responsibilities, be serious, analyse the funds available in the budget, to see whether or not we can afford to make such outlandish promises, to launch out on such costly ventures that they could lead to the bankruptcy of the government.
Mr. Speaker, a very summary analysis of public accounts shows that for pensions, veterans allowances, family allowances, allowances to disabled and blind persons, etc., the government spends $3,350,000 for the disabled and blind persons allowances, and, according to the estimates for 1967-68, $15 million will be paid to the disabled and family allowance payments will reach $610 million.
I wish to bring to the attention of our Creditiste friends, who were shouting across Quebec the slogan:	"Double our family
allowances", that this would require an expenditure of $610 million for the government and that they have never suggested where such a tremendous amount would come from, in order to pay the cost of ridiculous promises.
Concerning old age security, my hon friend and colleague, the member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont), has clearly indicated for the year 1967-1968 an estimated expenditure of about $1,400 million.
Mr. Speaker, if that does not show how the government is concerned with social security, I wonder what should be done to convince our people that no other government has ever demonstrated such concern for the security of our Canadian population.
As I said a while ago, I believe the steps suggested by our hon friend, the member for Chapleau, to be most generous in spirit but
November 1, 1967

rather difficult to enact in terms of the budget. Of course, the miraculous and key solution which has always been advocated by our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste, is the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada is the answer to unemployment.
One day, I asked the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), who is a dear friend of mine, and a very good, eager and stirring speaker, what would happen to unemployment if, some day, the Social Credit theory were put into practise, and he replied that unemployment would completely disappear in the province of Quebec. I am glad that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste can delight in such imaginary situations, but I do not think there are, in the world, a great many economists who could accept that theory, namely that once the Ralliement Creditiste would be in power, unemployment would disappear completely and forever.
But there are people who like to dream, who delight in utopia and day-dreams. So let us not disturb them, Mr. Speaker.
So, what is the solution for all those problems? The Bank of Canada: solution for unemployment; the Bank of Canada: solution for governments' debts; the Bank of Canada: solution for individual debts; the Bank of Canada: solution for inadequate productivity; the Bank of Canada: solution for the sterility of women; the Bank of Canada: solution for everybody's problems.
As for us, we are much more realistic and cautious and I must say that some of the theories set forth, namely that in wartime, the required money is found, whereas in peacetime, it is not found, are terrible fallacies. If money is found in wartime, it is because the government borrows it; it borrows because it is an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe): we admire him for fighting in this house and for waging war on poverty. I might tell him that the first to conceive the wonderful idea of waging war on poverty was a representative on the government side, and the slogan of war on poverty was invented by a member on this side of the house. The government appropriated this idea in a recent speech from the throne, in 1965. The government started an anti-poverty program.
We are also extremely interested in this program which could be not only speeded up but intensified as much as possible in order to eliminate poverty. We are also conscious
Old Age Security Act of that problem. However, instead of advocating senseless theories, we remain with the issue, which is to say that we are realistically considering the solutions necessary.
All the measures introduced by the government are certainly meant, one way or the other, to fight poverty, and it is with pride that we, members of the party in power, can say that the whole social legislation of Canada is the work, the exclusive work of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, one could make witty remarks about the hon. member's motion. I wonder whether this would not be a means of encouraging middle-age urge. Some old men are on the look-out for young blond girls, because they know that at 70 or 75, besides receiving a pension, they will be able to double their pension if they find an attractive young wife. That would be encouraging middle-age urge and it would be unwholesome.
But to speak in a more serious vein, let us say that in addition to all the expenditures made by the government in the field of social security, if the measure proposed by the hon. member were passed immediately, the following expenditures would have to be incurred in the following order. First of all, it would be necessary to institute a full inquiry to determine the exact number of married men entitled to old age pension benefits and that of the men whose wives are younger and not entitled to those benefits. According to a rough estimate, I think that such an expenditure would total $150 million. Moreover-there I come to the idea of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose answer is this. The widows of the same age, that is those who are not yet entitled to old age security benefits but who are of the same age as the wives of those who are entitled to them, would have to be granted that pension according to the same principle. This would mean an expenditure of about $140 million added to the expenditure I have mentioned of $150 million for a total of $290 million.
a (5:50 p.m.)
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the widows, we have to deal with the bachelors and the old maids whose age is between 60 and 65, list them and give them an old age pension to which people aged 68-67 this year-will be entitled. That would be an additional expenditure of about $50 million always approximately. On the whole, this means that the motion introduced by the hon.

November 1, 1967
Old Age Security Act member will involve an additional expenditure of $340 million.
Can the hon. member tell us exactly what budget expenditures will have to be cut to find these $340 million. If the hon. member, for instance, who is entitled to post offices this year in his constituency, were to tell us that he does not want those post offices but that the money should be earmarked for the spouse of those entitled to old age pension, that they should be given this money, that the post offices would be cut off, then we are all for it. If the hon. member is asking us to cut down on the building of television stations in his riding, we will. If the hon. member has other works which should be carried out in his riding we shall cut all that. All he has to do is to indicate clearly where he wants us to cut down in his riding. Let him tell us whether he wants to give up his salary and we will be very happy to oblige.
As far as I am concerned, I would be highly in favour of cutting the hon. member's salary. That does not affect me, Mr. Speaker, but it might affect others, because when one has no money, it does not change anything to have less, because one has none at all. Perhaps the hon. member is a rich man; I do not know whether he would accept to have his salary reduced, but I say to him that, personally, I look with favour upon the reduction of hon. members' pay.
I am very frank with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the Ralliement Creditiste was the first to say, on a television program broadcast throughout the province, that $18,000 was too high a salary for members. I wonder when the member gave up part of his indemnity, gave it to charity.
All this to say that demagoguery is easy, that it is easy to say that members receive too high a salary, that farmers are not as well paid. Still, when the time comes for action, we see that those who preach great principles with ardour show far less sincerity in applying them.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say the member has a very generous idea, which deserves to be studied with care, but those who are responsible for the administration are entitled to make what normal objections come up from the point of view of practical application, of budgetary economic realities. They must make people understand that there are financial problems which need to be tackled, and knowing as I do the goodwill of the hon. member, I am convinced he will be the first to co-operate and to admit that, for the time
[Mr. Choquette.l
being, his proposal cannot be taken into consideration, precisely because of the present budget situation.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to second the motion of the hon. member for Chap-leau (Mr. Laprise). This motion is rightly called for, in my estimation, because we must ask that a pension be paid to those people who do not receive any, because, under the present system that governs us, credit and full income have been taken away from the people through taxation and assessment, also through unemployment caused, in fact, by the system applied by the hon. members on the other side.
Unemployment was rife for 1G, 15 years, for decades, then was followed by the war. After all that, an extreme burden was placed on everyone through various taxes and assessments. Taxpayers saw their whole income taken away from them, and the reason why everyone is penniless and clamours for wage increases, it is that people are no longer able to live, having been fleeced by previous administrations. The Liberals are in power-and when the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) says that it feels good to be with the opposition-well, if it feels that good, I suggest that he resign and come with the opposition. It is easier to be with the opposition? The way things are, nothing can be done. He says that there is nothing for him to do on the government side, and that anything can be done on the side of the opposition? Well, he should come with his wise suggestions to the opposition side.
I do not know what is wrong with him, but anyhow he says there is nothing he can do about the economic situation, to find funds. The Creditistes are talking about the Bank of Canada, he says, but would it not be better to lend money interest free through the Bank of Canada to finance public goods, instead of merely encouraging the big concerns and the big financiers, whose profits amount to billions every year?
I could name institutions which have billions in revenue every year but which pay nevertheless about a quarter of the taxes paid by the small taxpayer. At this time and in the present system-not the Social Credit system-the little people are the ones who pay taxes. The big shots are given the right to all sorts of reserve funds: hidden reserves, direct reserves, indirect reserves. They also enjoy the right to every kind of depreciation. The tax schedule is terribly unfair.
November 1, 1967

There are great injustices, but the hon. member does not mention them. It he wanted to be honest, he would simply tell us: the money is not to be found. Then, I would answer him: Think about the $18 billion surplus that has been capitalized this year and will amount to $22 billion in 1967-68. It is possible in some places to find a few millions in order to enable certain people to live decently. Under our present system, we would not have to tax everybody in general, to keep on accumulating debts, to increase the budget, to go deep into debt and to have a deficit of over $1 billion this year.
We have had deficits since the end of the war. The member for Lotbiniere tells us that it is all right to borrow money in wartime and to spend it. But we should do the same in peacetime. If it is permissible to live in times of war, while killing our fellow-men, it should be all the more so in times of peace when it is the right time to live. When the time comes to live, all we are given is taxes and more taxes.
When old age pensions are increased, taxes are increased also by about one and one-half times what is needed for those pensions, because the coffers of the government must be filled and deficits reduced.
When there is a deficit, when the administration is always financed by taxes, when no solution is found to manage and promote the economy, at least you should have the courtesy of not laughing at those who have found solutions and who can prove it with figures in black and white. I can erase Canada's debt within ten years and reduce taxes by 50 per cent. Is that enough for the hon. member? Can he find such solutions himself? No, but he finds that ridiculous. The present debt is ridiculous and the present taxes are also ridiculous.
Since I do not want to kill this motion, I conclude by saying that I strongly support it. I commend its sponsor and ask that the question be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monlmoren-cy):: Mr. Speaker, we have just a few minutes left. I just want to say in those few moments that the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who finds in this motion a principle with which
Business of the House
he agrees comes as a surprise to me. I should like him to show me what kind of a principle is featured in this motion, which says: If one spouse receives something, his partner must receive the same thing.
For too long, there has been an effort in this house to destroy the basis, the fundamental principle of our social security, which is not the material and financial needs of the individual, but all social security measures considered as assistance, whether they be directly related to our national income, our national product and our general resources.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, when a motion of this kind is introduced, I know they are presented with honourable intent, but it really makes me wonder, and this is directed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is quite proper, and also quite easy, to approve everything when one is seated on the other side of the house, it is all in the game.
But I really wonder why, if he has a sense of responsibilities, and above all the ability to set priorities, he did not have the courage to stand and say in this house: This principle cannot be accepted.
The opposition tells us: You spend too much. The N.D.P. tell us exactly the same thing, and I have known it for quite a long time. Every time there is talk of increasing one thing, everything must be increased; increase on the one hand and spend less on the other. Why, he should join the Social Credit party. If that party really wants to set up priorities, what then is it doing with that policy? Of course, it can be quite fair. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, my-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader whether we are correct in assuming that the business for tomorrow, Friday and Monday will be as has already been announced?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No change is contemplated, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 2, 19G7