1967-11-03

Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, as the result of a general demand among lobster fishermen I am announcing today a program of limitation of the number of lobster traps per boat which will be introduced in all lobster fishing districts in the maritime provinces commencing with the 1968 lobster fishing seasons. The number of traps will be reduced further in most districts in 1969. I also wish to point out that the majority of lobster fishermen in all districts favour some limitation of the numbers permitted to engage in the fishery and, in addition to the trap limits consideration is being given to means of restricting entry into the lobster fishery in an equitable manner.
Earlier this year I made it quite clear that lobsters are a vital resource for thousands of Canada's inshore fishermen. It is imperative that this resource be managed as wisely as possible to ensure its continuance on a profitable basis to the fishermen.
I wish to make it very clear that this trap limit, as well as the restrictive measures which will be introduced, will not affect before 1968 the fishermen in district No. 3 where the fall season opened on October 15, in district No. 1 where the season will open on November 15 and district No. 4 where the season will open on December 1. These three areas will be affected, as will other areas in the maritimes, at the opening of their 1968 fishing seasons next fall. I thought it advisable to warn the fishermen now of the restrictions which will be imposed on them next year.
As the description and the variation of trap limits are different in different areas and would mean a rather lengthy report to give on motions, I would appreciate it if I could receive unanimous consent of the house to have a release which I am issuing today tabled and printed as an appendix to Hansard, for this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


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


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement the Minister of Fisheries has just made is one of great importance to the lobster fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. It stems, of course, from the fact that this is a limited resource and in recent years the product has become high priced, tending to attract into the industry a greater amount of equipment and personnel than is rationally needed to harvest the crop.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
When government steps into a field and decrees regulations governing how private citizens may earn their living, the regulations must be drawn with great caution. I know and fishermen will recognize that if there is little regulation of the numbers of men and the amount of equipment to be used, the problem facing their industry in the overexploitation of their resources and the difficulty of controlling and harvesting that resource in an equitable and efficient manner will worsen. I trust, nevertheless, that the minister will exercise great caution. I hope the fishing industry and the department have co-operated in every possible way in deciding what the limitation should be and how limitation of entry into the industry is to be brought about so that undue hardship will not result for any individual. I presume the experiment to limit gear in some areas has been satisfactory.
We note with consternation that the lobster fishing industry in some areas has had a difficult and unproductive year. We hope that this measure, if it is wisely and carefully implemented, will result in benefits to the industry generally.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other group in our society, fishermen over the years have come to accept governmental impingement on what one normally considers the right to pursue one's vocation. The impingement I refer to here is the impingement by the government

November 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry on the right of lobster fishermen to fish when and how they see fit.
Conservation in the fishing industry is of paramount importance, and exploitation of any fishery resource may only be allowed within the bounds permitted by conservation. The minister indicated that he thought it wise to warn lobster fishermen as far in advance as possible that there would be a curtailment of the numbers of lobster traps which could be used within the next couple of years. Warning the fishermen as far in advance as possible was a commendable action.
Some years ago Dr. Sol Sinclair of Manitoba undertook an extensive examination into the prospect of limiting licences of certain fisheries on the west coast. While the lobster fishery on the west coast is not what it should be at the moment there is an expectation, because of transplanting of lobsters, that this resource may be expanded and developed. Dr. Sinclair's report dealt with limiting licences on the west coast. I hope, in one sense, that the minister's statement about limiting traps in the lobster industry is not a prelude to a proposal to limit licences with respect to lobster fishing on the west coast. Other measures, we feel, could be undertaken far more sensibly, namely the proposition to expand the fishing fleet, thereby allowing fishermen to travel farther in their quest for different sorts of fish.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-181, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (days of attendance).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to define the expression "public or official business" appearing in section 36 of the Senate and House of Commons Act so as to allow members of parliament to execute with a clear conscience the necessary affidavit of attendance each month.
"Public or official business" is restricted to work of a member as representative or work related to the matters coming within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. This subsection means that any time spent on private or professional business or on any recreational activity will not be considered as public or official business.

This amendment will require the redrafting of the present antique statutory declaration on attendance as it does not conform to the present act or the proposed amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the hon. lady received word of the resignation of the distinguished president of Acadia University, Dr. J. M. R. Beveridge, as a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and have any other directors indicated their intention to resign?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I think Dr. Beveridge indicated six months or a year ago that he was desirous of resigning and maybe he has done so.



REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON COMPETENCE OF ADMINISTRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister with reference to a statement made on national television last night by the Prime Minister, who said he had congratulated Mr. Ouimet, president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the work of that organization and thanked him in the course of an interview for the great services he had rendered.
In view of a statement by the Secretary of State during a previous broadcast that there had been "rotten management" in the C.B.C., I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is a divergence of views within the cabinet with respect to the competence of the administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is in order to ask the question the hon. member has just posed in that form. He asked whether there is a divergence of views within the cabinet and I do not think such a question is acceptable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the Acting Prime Minister what is the government's view with respect to administrative competence within the C.B.C?
November 3, 1967


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the last question contains the same formula but does not lend itself to the kind of answer which should be given on orders of the day.


Mr. Starr:: Never mind analysing the question. Give an answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a very serious charge has been levelled at the C.B.C. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he does not think that in fairness to those members of the corporation who are doing a competent job, the government should make a statement at an early date with respect to whom the Secretary of State had in mind when she described the administration as being rotten.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will be very pleased to note what my hon. friend has said.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he considers there is a female George Brown within the cabinet.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State. It is similar to three or four questions which have been put, except that I want mine to be more objective.
Has the minister any details to give the house further to the visit made by Mr. Alphonse Ouimet yesterday to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Timmins.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
I have the impression that the minister has possibly not grasped my question through the translation. May I repeat my question in English to make sure that the minister understands it?


Mr. Speaker:: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I did not catch all the question. I should like to thank the hon. member for sending me a note concerning what he intended to ask, but it is hardly appropriate for me to comment on the Prime Minister's visitors.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to put a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I shall address it to his secretary.
Does the government intend to give some assistance with a view to increasing the production of steel and nickel in Canada? An increase would allow us to reduce our imports of stainless steel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is much too general in nature to be put at this time, and that instead, it should be put on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman tell the house how it was that Minto Armouries in Winnipeg proved vulnerable a few days ago to thieves who escaped with seven army machine guns and a quantity of ammunition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Then may I rephrase my question and ask the Acting Prime Minister what steps are being taken at national defence establishments across Canada to ensure that military arms and ammunition will be safe from raids by thieves, vandals, and possible subversive elements?

November 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is very general in nature and should be placed on the order paper.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Then I direct a related question to the Solicitor General. Has he any information to support the view that the arms and ammunition stolen from Minto Armouries might be ticketed for delivery to separatist groups?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm the suggestion made by the hon. member. I can only add that the R.C.M.P. are co-operating with the municipal authorities in the city of Winnipeg.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South inquired of the Prime Minister whether there were any plans to assist in the plight of employees of the Canada Cement plant in Manitoba who had learned that they were to be laid off, and the Prime Minister undertook to look into the matter and discuss it with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As acting minister I would like to say that the Department of Manpower and Immigration knows of this impending lay-off which it is intimated may last for a period of four months. Plans are being laid for alternative employment for these men. It has also been suggested that our manpower counsellors be brought into the picture and, where possible, the men will be referred for retraining courses, with provision of course for usual training allowances.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
London.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wished to pose but in the absence of the Minister for Manpower and Immigration I shall defer it until the start of next week.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Transport; in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. In view of a statement made by the hon. member for Westmorland in Moncton last night that within a week the Minister of Transport was going to announce a change in freight tariffs by the C.N.R., would the minister inform the house when we may expect such announcement; and at the time it is made would the Minister of Transport inform the house fully of his discussions with railway management with respect to railway lay-offs, particularly in the Atlantic region?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the announcement I think I had better leave it for the minister himself on his return to the house.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Is it true that only one third of the coins collected in the fountain on parliament hill are going where they are supposed to go, that is to the Canadian Association for Retarded Children?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not
believe the question is appropriate at this time. It should be placed on the order paper.


Murdo William Martin: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the publicity in this regard there is a reflection on the government and on parliament itself.


George James McIlraith: I should perhaps explain that there was a piece of misinformation published yesterday on this subject. All the coins in the fountain are going to the Canadian Association for Retarded Children.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and has to do with an important subject which is currently very much in the public domain, namely Canadian medical aid to Viet Nam. In the light of the very
November 3, 1967



serious allegations made by a most experienced medical man, Dr. Hall, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the house and the country that he and the officials of his department are taking advantage of Dr. Hall's knowledge in an effort to find out how they can improve the situation in this area and whether they are making every effort to correct the serious abuses which Dr. Hall pointed out?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known rule of the house, of course, that it is not open to hon. members to comment on what is transpiring in a committee of this house. My hon. friend is a member of the committee and was present this morning. He put some questions himself-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that a perfectly legitimate question, not a comment, was asked of the minister of external affairs as to whether he would take advantage of and profit by the experience of a certain noted individual who is an expert on this matter. All we are getting from the minister is a repudiation of this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a
point of order. The hon. member is being argumentative. The minister expressed an opinion about the rules of the house. I do not think this should be the basis for a point of order raised by the hon. member at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure my hon. friend, for whom I have the greatest esteem, that the assurance he is seeking from me was very ably given this morning by the external aid director, Mr. Strong, supplemented by me.


Michael Starr: What did you supplement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to simply say to my hon. friends
opposite, in the kindest way, that the impression of urbanity and civility of the new Tory leadership does not jibe with the noisy and carefree attitude of some hon. members of the official opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister postpone the answer to the question asked by the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While we recognize that any minister may decide not to answer a question,
I do not think he should couple a refusal to answer with the suggestion that an hon. member is out of order. The committee had before it a document, namely the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on foreign policy. If this interpretation by the minister were carried through there would be no question on any aspect of foreign policy which would be allowable in this house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, having so successfully dealt with that matter in a friendly way I should like to deal with another question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau.

Now, I want to answer the question which was put to me the other day by the hon. member for Chapleau which I had promised to answer right away.
The hon. member for Chapleau asked me on October 26 whether, in my opinion, the situation in Cyprus was such that we could expect our troops to return at the end of the year, when the present commitment expires.
Although the situation in Cyprus has slightly improved during the last months, no progress has been made towards a political solution and serious tension still remains on the island. Therefore, I shall expect a continuing need for the peace-keeping force when, on December 26, of this year, the present commitment comes to an end.
However, I must say to the hon. member that a final decision on this matter will have to wait until the next report of the UN secretary general is filed with the security council on Cyprus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in respect of the answer the minister gave having regard to the situation in Cyprus. May I ask the minister what steps are being taken by the government of Canada to effect a political settlement in Cyprus.

November 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the security council Canada now has both the opportunity and I think the obligation to try to bring about a political settlement. We have taken the view up to now that as a country contributing to the force we should not enter into support of one side or the other. We will not change that view, but we believe the time has come when certain steps should be undertaken to try to encourage a settlement. We are now discussing with the country concerned and certain other countries a proposal which would have to carry their support in order to be adopted. I am not in a position to report acceptance of our idea as yet; however, we are putting forward certain proposals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister whether this proposal of the Canadian government is being discussed by the security council.


Murdo William Martin: This proposal is one which will have to be resolved by the security council if it is put forward. Whether it will be put forward will depend on consultations which are now under way.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: should like to ask the secretary of state whether Canada is still paying the full cost of her peace keeping force in Cyprus?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada is one country that is paying for the support for her troops in the United Nations force in Cyprus. We are doing this because the United Nations does not have the necessary funds. I think this is a useful kind of contribution to make in an area where we want to strengthen the peace-making role of the United Nations.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether there has been any request for assistance from the government of Cyprus other than for military aid and whether Canada will provide it?


Murdo William Martin: I think that I should take this question as notice. I am not sure, but I will answer next week.
(Mr. Douglas.]



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I intended to pose this question to the Acting Prime Minister, but in view of the fact that he has not given answers to a majority of the questions posed to him today I shall direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What is the date of the meeting between the provinces and the federal government to discuss implementation of the medicare program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question to relate to a possible meeting, there has been no date set as yet.


Michael Starr: Have there been no requests from the provinces for such a meeting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the premiers met in the summer and a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister suggesting a meeting on medicare. The Prime Minister has told the house that his reply to Premier Robichaud, who made the request on behalf of the premiers, was under consideration.


Michael Starr: When will a decision be rendered for a meeting to take place prior to the date now set by legislation for the implementation of medicare?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no date has been set for any meeting and no decision has been taken in respect of such a meeting. I gather the Prime Minister will be able to report on his reply to Premier Robichaud next week.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address another question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the powerful policy statement made last night by the President of the Privy Council, is the minister now prepared to give the assurance to this house and the country that medicare "will not be sacrificed on the altar of economy"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The greatest assurance the hon. member could wish to have is the fact that the law of the land clearly states the commencement date of medicare.
November 3, 1967	COMMONS



QUEBEC-APPLICATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR HOSPITAL PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare of which I have given him due notice. The annual report of the Montreal Children's Hospital contains this statement by Eliot S. Frosst, president:
We are facing the worst financial crisis in our hospital's history.
The report also contains this statement by Douglas Lennox, the honorary treasurer:
This means for the bulk of our suppliers, that we are now ten months behind in paying for goods and services without which the hospital cannot continue to operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I simply wish to ask the minister whether he has yet been able to persuade the minister of health for the province of Quebec to apply the federal funds provided them for hospital purposes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance and make a reply later.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Perhaps the minister and I could discuss it at ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. In view of the government's announced desire that committees function efficiently, does the government intend to refer anything at all to the committee on crown corporations so we might have an opportunity to meet and examine these very important bodies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend to see whether anything at all can be referred.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question but I do not know whether I should
DEBATES	3857
Inquiries of the Ministry address it to the house leader or to the Registrar General. Will steps be taken shortly so that the special joint committee responsible for investigating consumer credit may resume its activities?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I recently discussed the terms of reference of this committee with the former joint chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) and with hon. Senator Croll, and I think that we will be able to reconstitute the committee soon, with terms of reference quite interesting for the country.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In order to protect the good name of Canada as a country of freedom of political expression, will the government give immediate consideration to changing the immigration policy in effect since October 1 which requires prospective immigrants to declare their past political affiliations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked yesterday, I think, and it has been
referred to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I thank my hon. friend for asking it again.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-NON-PARTICIPATION IN REFUGEE SETTLEMENT PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I ask the minister whether a statement can be made as soon as poss ble as to why the province of British Columbia is not participating with the department to bring handicapped refugees and their families to Canada this year, as is the situation with eight other provinces.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the matter is taken up with the minister right away. The minister's parliamentary secretary is here and he will follow through on the question.

November 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
AGRICULTURE


An hon. Member:: It's true.



MILK-INQUIRY AS TO NATIONAL SCHOOL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government taken action, and if so with what success, in introducing a milk program for schools?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is again a question that has been asked on a number of occasions in previous weeks and months. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is much too general in scope and cannot be asked again.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I realize the question has been asked, Mr. Speaker, but it has not been answered.


Mr. Knowles:: So what's new?



EXPO '67 SUGGESTED ERECTION OF MONUMENT TO HUMAN FRATERNITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Prime Minister but in his absence, I shall put it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the wish expressed by a large proportion of the people of Canada, is it the intention of the parliament of Canada to recommend the erection of a monument to "The Brotherhood of Man" at the entrance of Expo 67?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member should be put on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as Canada's part time housing minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: What is wrong with that?


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: He is our part time housing minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: Well, protect me from these people. How can I protect myself against this type of conduct? Maybe they don't care about the housing crisis, but we do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will not ask the question I will call orders of the day.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: I will ask the question, but I was just appealing for some sort of order on the government benches.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, can we have order in the house on the government side?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question and not make a speech.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: That is what I am trying to do.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: I should like to ask our part time housing minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Ricard:: Noise is their contribution. They cannot do anything else.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the disorder on the government benches this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Trudeau:: The disorder is in your mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: The Minister of Justice is getting disorderly in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have lost what I suggest is precious time in the House of Commons. The hon. member has been on his feet for a few minutes to ask a question and has not yet asked it.


Michael Starr: There is too much noise from the government side of the house.
November 3, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat. There is not perfect order in the house at this time, but I am sure the hon. member will be heard by the minister and the Chair if he asks his question now.


Reid Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to ask a question in my usual unprovocative manner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of Canada's continuing housing crisis and in view of the coming conference, the government has given any consideration to our request that members of opposition parties have a right to attend that conference if only in the capacity of observers.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the part time member for Danforth-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -1 will say that his suggestion will be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I as a corollary suggest to hon. members that this type of appellation is not in order. I suggest it is very close to being offensive to call a minister a part time minister or an hon. member a part time member. I suggest that all hon. members keep this in mind.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, when I call the minister a part time minister I do not wish to suggest that I am casting any personal reflection whatsoever on him. We all know he is the Minister of Labour. We have objected to the fact that we do not have a full time minister of housing. It is no reflection by me, nor would I wish it to be so taken, upon the minister himself.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Carfier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the by-election in Nova Scotia, has the Secretary of State received any information on bribery charges?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of
State): Not yet, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	3859
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [Translation]



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Under the former ministers of justice, the Bankruptcy Act was to be revised. Can the minister tell the house what progress has been made in this regard?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the matter of bankruptcies now comes under the Registrar General.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Now that the other place has reconvened would the minister give his support to the joint committee on penitentiary matters being called together at an early date, as I understand that both co-chairmen would support an early meeting?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, following an earlier appeal by the hon. member I contacted the chairmen and was given assurance that the committee would be convened in the very near future.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 1, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for 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. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to summarize briefly a few of the things I said on this subject before the debate was adjourned on Wednesday. I referred to the new broadcasting act having in clause 2 (g) (iv) a reference to national unity. This is what the clause says: the national broadcasting service should . .. contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity;
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
One can hardly argue with that as an aim of the broadcasting system, but it will have very many meanings; national unity means so many different things to so many different people. I expressed the other day one little fear at the back of my mind. I have heard a great many complaints about people in the C.B.C., particularly the French network, supposedly being leftists, separatists and so on. I do not know whether this is true, and I am not sure that the people who make the accusations know whether it is true. But I would not want this phrase "national unity" in the legislation to be used as any sort of excuse for witch hunting within the corporation.
While the object of the national broadcasting system in its public and private sectors should be to promote national unity I hope we will always allow for dissent in this regard; that is, allow for other ideas on what kind of country we should be. I see the hon. member for Lotbiniere is in the house. The hon. member believes that Canada ought to be a republic. That is a view held by a number of people in the country. There should always be room for that view to be expressed on our broadcasting system. So let us watch this particular point about national unity which is now written into the new act.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
We have this rather difficult problem, Mr. Speaker, of running a public broadcasting system which has not become a state system. There are many countries in Europe, and I am not referring to just eastern Europe, in which the broadcasting systems are obviously state systems dominated by the government. We do not want that here. This leads me back to another point I was discussing the other day, having to do with the kind of persons appointed to be in charge of our broadcasting system, those people who will be members of the Canadian radio commission or whatever name the regulatory authority will have and the people who will run the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Just before adjournment of the debate on Wednesday, I quoted an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of October 19, I believe it was, which was to the effect that these appointments should be non-political. I quite agree with that. I feel very much about these appointments as I do about the appointment of judges. This does not mean that anybody who has been identified with the party in power is automatically ruled out. There has been some criticism of the present board of directors of the C.B.C. The broadcasting committee has an opportunity to meet
[Mr. Prittie.l
all these people last year or earlier this year. Some of these people, I think, might well be on the new board.
The point is that people of the highest quality who have stature in their own particular regions or nationally in this country should be considered regardless of their political background. If I may just take an example, I should think Mr. Robert Fowler would know a great deal about broadcasting now as a result of all the experience he has gained investigating it. I am told that Mr. Fowler is a Liberal. I believe Mr. Fowler would make an admirable appointee to one of these agencies, either the Canadian radio commission or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We have to try to avoid the suspicion which can be aroused in the public mind if all the appointments come from one particular point of view.
I am not going to labour at any length the statements made by the Secretary of State about the management of the C.B.C. I thought the title of the editorial in La Presse of November 2 was very apt; it read "Une Declaration Bizarre". I am sure the minister has heard a great deal about it both from this side of the house and the other side. I should simply like to say that presumably the new act will be invoked very shortly and new appointments will be made. It would have been better leave these things unsaid. It would have been better to make the new appointments, have the new people get on with the job and make whatever changes may be necessary. As it is, reflections have been cast upon some innocent persons. Perhaps the minister did not intend that, but this is inevitably what has happened.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to one particular aspect of broadcasting which I think is a very important one which we have to face. I stress this important principle of broadcasting, and it is this question. Do Canadians want Canadian programs on Canadian television stations? This question has been asked quite recently by a number of people who comment on radio broadcasting in this country. On October 21 the Toronto Daily Star had an article written by Mr. Roy Shields entitled "Satellites and cable TV threaten networks". I should like to quote briefly from it:
Within five years CTV may he out of business and the C.B.C. reduced to the status of educational television in the United States.
This is the threat from new horizons opening to cable TV and the imminent arrival of domestic satellite broadcasting.
November 3, 1967

These fears were expressed openly to me by Gordon Keeble, president of CTV and Murray Chercover, general manager of the private network. Furthermore, they are echoed by other major broadcasters.
What it means simply is that all the American programs available on CTV and the C.B.C. may soon be available everywhere in Canada via a combination of cable TV and domestic satellites and later directly by satellites to home receivers The possibility of CTV existing on its Canadian programming alone then becomes remote.
These fears have been expressed by other people. Mr. Dennis Braithwaite, who writes on television in the Toronto Globe and Mail, has expressed the same fears and in effect has said "Canadian content, who wants it"? Again in the Globe and Mail Ian Porter recently had an article from which he wrote:
We buy from Britain, France, commonwealth countries and most of all from the United States. For business reasons the figures are never released, but it is a safe bet that last year the C.B.C. alone spent more than $5 million importing U.S. programs. By comparison, the C.B.C. happily announces it made $220,000 last year peddling its own TV goodies abroad.
The article goes on to mention that Canadian viewers prefer United States programs. Mr. Blackburn of the Toronto Telegram made a comment on a speech by Dr. Andrew Stewart of the Board of Broadcast Governors, and said that Dr. Stewart was not too worried about this question of Canadian programs and Canadian talent.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might do something which I would not ordinarily try to do. I know the column to which my hon. friend is referring, and Dr. Stewart sent me a transcript of that he had said. There seems absolutely no basis in the transcript for the comment. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Blackburn, but in this case he seems to be quitte wrong. I am often enough attacked for things I have not said, and I do not believe this should happen to Dr. Stewart in this case.


Robert William Prittie: I thank the minister for that information and the information about Dr. Stewart. I therefore withdraw any reference to him, but the other references still stand. We do have this expression of opinion that Canadians do not want Canadian programs.
We also have the point of view that you cannot keep Canadian talent in Canada, that it will inevitably go somewhere else. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new situation. In the area from which I come, the lower mainland of British Columbia, the first television broadcasting available came from United States stations. Later we had a C.B.C.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting station, and still later a private station. Now cable television is widely available in the area. I think experience has shown that about one third of the people watch C.B.C. during prime time, about one third the private station and about one third United States stations. In other parts of Canada such as Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal, United States programs are available. This does not bother me one bit. We hear the view that eventually there are going to be satellites, and these satellites will broadcast directly to the home receiver. Presumably when that day comes we will be able to see programs directly from Great Britain. I think this is interesting, and I am rather looking forward to that experience.
I believe people watch the television programs they like. They watch good programs. If they want to watch a comedy program they want a good comedy program, and the same may be said of drama. If they want to watch public affairs programs they want good public affairs programs. They want good mystery programs, good country music programs or whatever the case may be. I believe it is the quality of the program, not where the program originates, that is the key point. I suggest that we can produce programs in Canada of a quality which Canadians will want to watch and which will stand up in competition with programs which originate elsewhere.
[DOT] (12 noon)
What is the obstacle to more Canadian programs with Canadian talent? I suggest that we have been lacking the will to make them, and perhaps the money as well. Many of these programs which come from the United States are quite frankly dumped into this country at a very low price. I should like to quote briefly from an answer in the broadcasting committee made by the president of the C.B.C. This answer can be found in the minutes of the committee No. 28 for November 22, 1966.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) asked the president of the C.B.C. this question:
You say 7 to 8 per cent of the original American cost, which I realize would not be much, but what would it be in comparison to an equivalent program? I know it is hard to assess these things because you really cannot put two programs side by side and say they are equivalent, but what would 7 and 8 per cent be as a figure?
In reply Mr. Ouimet said:
If we take a one hour program, we can get the best American ones for less than $10,000, probably around $8,000. On the other hand, this
November 3, 1967
3862	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting represents an original cost of the order of $100,000 to $125,000. A Canadian program which we could place at the same time of sufficient polish and attractiveness would probably cost $30,000 or $40,000. Therefore you have to compare the $8,000 with the $30,000 or the $40,000.
This is what I mean, Mr. Speaker, when I say that United States program producers are dumping programs in this country. We have laws against dumping of other commodities and I suggest we should also have a law in this field as well. By all means let them sell programs in Canada, but not at cut rates. I suggest that Canadian broadcasters should have the same kind of protection that publishers of Canadian periodicals have as a result of the O'Leary report, except, of course, the two most important competitors, Time and Readers Digest. Nevertheless, I think this kind of protection of Canadian broadcasters is quite justified.
The C.B.C. is not the only broadcaster that is buying United States programs on the cheap. The private stations do it as well. Perhaps the Board of Broadcast Governors felt in the early days of private stations that this was justified when they might have had difficulty making ends meet. I should like to quote briefly once again from the minutes of the broadcasting committee, No. 31, for December 15, 1966. Dr. Andrew Stewart, the chairman of the B.B.G. was giving evidence at the time and I asked him this question:
May I ask if this has been the case in the past few years concerning the private television stations? Let me put it this way, were you rather easy on them in the first few years of their earnings, because you felt they may not have been able to do the things that they promised to do concerning Canadian talent, Canadian content?
Mr. Stewart replied:
The brief answer is, yes. If you want me to elaborate on it I can do that. Yes, this is so.
I went on to point out that the earning position of the private stations in the major centres of Canada had increased considerably and that they were now in a financial position to do more Canadian programming and employ more Canadian talent.
If I may return to the bill, Mr. Speaker, in clause 2, which defines broadcasting policy for Canada, subclause (d) states:
the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian resources;


So again it is stressed that we should use predominantly Canadian resources. I suggest that if we want to do this and are willing to pay the price we can produce good, predominantly Canadian programs that our people will want to watch.
Let me point out that we can retain talent in Canada. I am not ignorant of the fact that talented Canadians will always leave the country to work elsewhere. If your name is Lome Greene and you are offered several hundred thousand dollars a year to go to Hollywood to make Bonanza, I suppose it is difficult to refuse. This sort of thing will always happen. Some people will go to London and New York. But there are others who are very competent and quite willing to stay. There are also people who have made a name in broadcasting and the theatre in other countries but have chosen to keep their homes in Canada and at least work part time in this country.
The obvious examples that come to my mind in this connection are Wayne and Shuster, who have their homes in Toronto and make programs in Canada and also in the United States. The very talented actress Kate Reid, is also in this category. Again, Barry Morse makes programs in Canada in addition to the United States and the United Kingdom. These well known people do this sort of thing, and we also have many lesser known people who will remain in Canada if there is opportunity in Canada for them to make programs. However, before this can happen the major broadcasters, the C.B.C. and the C.T.V. network, have to spend more money on Canadian talent. If they do this they will be able to produce programs that Canadians will watch, but they will have to be programs of quality.
We in parliament have a responsibility in this regard. We provide the C.B.C. with money for this sort of thing. One of the complaints of the corporation is that they have to take much advertising revenue and that the sponsors, the advertisers, want many of these United States programs. We frequently hear from members of this house of the tremendous cost of the C.B.C., but I do not think the cost is so tremendous. It amounts to about $5 or $6 per head per year, which is not too much to pay for a system which should do a job of broadcasting, Canadian broadcasting, for Canadians.
I suggest too that perhaps we should have legislation to encourage Canadian advertisers to back Canadian programs. Whether we do
November 3. 1967	COMMONS
this by special tax incentives for sponsors of Canadian programs or by way of tax penalty if programs of non-Canadian origin are sponsored I do not know, but there is room for something along this line so as to encourage sponsors to back Canadian programs. I am sure that if the programs are good and the Canadian people watch them, advertisers will be quite ready to do this sort of thing.
I have mentioned this subject particularly because I think there is a growing cynicism among the people who comment and write about television that Canadians do not want Canadian programs. I am convinced that if we produce good programs Canadians will want to watch them. In this regard our situation is not unique. Popular United States programs such as the Bonanza are shown in Britain, France, Italy and Japan, and there is nothing wrong with that.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget The Beverley Hillbillies.


Robert William Prittie: Yes. The Beverley Hillbillies
and Hogan's Heroes too. Other countries produce a significant number of programs that their own people like and I am suggesting that we must do the same thing in this country.
There are one or two other points I should like to make about the bill. The minister has said that consideration is being given to a five-year budget for the C.B.C. This provision is not included in this legislation but will be brought in later. I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) the other night, who expressed for the first time some doubts on this move, though he was quite agreeable to it when the matter was discussed in the committee. However, if hon. members do have some fear that this will remove somewhat the necessary parliamentary supervision of the broadcasting system, I would remind them that two opportunities are provided to exercise control. First of all, the Auditor General examines crown corporations and makes a report which is considered by the public accounts committee each year. He can if he wishes examine the accounts of the C.B.C. and, knowing parliamentarians, I point out that members can discuss almost any aspect of the C.B.C. under that heading.
I would also remind the house that the broadcasting committee made this recommendation concerning the C.B.C. and the regula-
DEBATES	3863
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting tory authorities, as found on page 8 of the committee report on the white paper:
As creatures of parliament, both the B.B.G. and the C.B.C. should continue to report to parliament annually and the members of each board should be available to this committee for a review of their reports when their estimates are under consideration.
The next point is also important.
A major parliamentary inquiry into broadcasting should not be necessary more than once every five years.
So there is still ample opportunity for a parliamentary review of the work of the Canadian radio commission and of the C.B.C. each year even if the C.B.C. is granted a budget for a period of five years.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: May I ask the hon. member a question? With regard to the Auditor General's report and the public accounts committee, I think the hon. member has raised a legitimate proposal, but does he not realize that when the public accounts committee deals with the report of the Auditor General it is always at least one year late? In other words, not until next year will the public accounts committee have the opportunity to deal with this year's C.B.C. spending habits. That applies to any other crown corporation, for that matter. On that basis, the opportunities of the public accounts committee are strictly limited. They will continue to be limited unless arrangements can be made or legislation enacted under which the expenditures of the current year also may be examined.


Robert William Prittie: I will not argue with the hon. member on that point. He knows more than I do about the operation of the public accounts committee. What he says is true. We have just finished examining the spending estimates for the current fiscal year and it is more than half over. I suggest that if the annual reports of the Canadian radio commission and the C.B.C. were referred immediately to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts when they are tabled in the house, hon. members would be given an earlier opportunity to question the directors of these two bodies.
In the last little while the C.B.C. has come in for a good deal of criticism from a number of sources. We hear charges of mismanagement and bureaucracy. These may or may not be true. I am not a management analyst and I do not know whether they are. But I
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting do say this that despite the charges of mismanagement and bureaucracy the corporation has done an excellent job during this centennial year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hear, hear.


Robert William Prittie: I have watched many of the corporation's programs and they are, as they should be, interpreting Canada to Canadians. Last evening I watched the program about the Yukon and I gathered much new information.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How did you manage that? The house did not rise until late.


Robert William Prittie: In the past I have been critical of the private broadcasters. It is true they have not done as they promised they would. One year ago the C.T.V. network changed its organization; nevertheless, they have not done everything they promised to do. But they too have made an effort to broadcast more programs with more Canadian content than they did before. Of course, our centennial year prompted them to do this. They and the C.B.C. covered that great entertainment, the Tory convention, which took place in Toronto in September. Both networks did a good job.
We understand that the bill is to go to the broadcasting committee for clause by clause study. In my opening remarks on Wednesday I said that the relationship of the minister, the regulatory authority and the C.B.C., among a number of other aspects of the bill, ought to be examined carefully. We must look hard at the entire field of relationships.
Today I deliberately dealt with the use of Canadian talent. We must make the effort to create Canadian programs which will be of a quality that Canadians will want to watch. If we spend our money, make the effort and then find after five or six years that Canadians do not want Canadian programs, that will present us with a situation that we must then examine. In the meantime I think we ought to make the effort and I do not think we have done so in the past.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to sit on the committee that considered the reforms, the improvements and the radical changes which are the purpose of the bill we have before us.
Before coming to the core of my remarks, may I be permitted to congratulate the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury) and to remind the house that he has
[Mr. Prittle.l
chaired these informative sittings with remarkable tact and understanding.
Since its inception in Canada almost fifty years ago, broadcasting has originated as much with private as with public enterprise. For almost half a century now, it has been extending its services and, at the present time, radio services reach 98 per cent and television services more than 92 per cent of the Canadian people.
To become such an integral part of the daily life of the people, broadcasting has to adapt to public needs, so as to learn to serve them according to the language and the separate culture of each ethnic group, without weakening the concept of national unity. It is not an easy task to achieve this accomplishment in a country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
It was necessary to set up 360 radio transmitters and 221 television and satellite stations to reach a population spread over 4000 miles of territory. The combination and connection of radio and television stations enable almost all Canadians to listen to or witness events of national interest at the time they are happening. Such achievements have contributed to make our radio network one of the most highly considered in the world.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
But our effort should not stop or be limited there, because there are certain values to be protected at the C.B.C. Fortunately, the present government has taken the worthy initiative of amending and changing the Broadcasting Act. We hope they will proceed objectively, always taking into account the best interest of the people who are always waiting for the reforms suggested in the bill.
Reading the resolution preceeding Bill No. C-163, I took particular note of the interventions by the hon. members for Chapleau and Trois-Rivieres (Messrs. Laprise and Mongrain).
In his speech reported on page 3180 and 3181 of the French version of Hansard for October 17 last, the hon. member for Chapleau recalled the numerous protests sent to the C.B.C. because of the deceptive character of some programs shown in the past. In a petition addressed to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), 76,000 Canadian women have jointly expressed their strong dispap-proval of some programs shamelessly displaying morbid immorality, injurious to the soul and spirit of our young people especially.
Other authorized persons have called for a more effective censorship to suppress, at least
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Useless to say that this decision of the
B.	B.G. was not warmly received by the people of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area because all the towns in the area had fully supported this project conceived by a team of progressive and dynamic young people.
I conclude my remarks here, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to assure the house that we will follow carefully the consideration of this bill, with the intention of suggesting amendments, if necessary.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are stark and convincing reasons why this bill on Canadian broadcasting, and the
C.	B.C. in particular, should be both clear and unequivocal, and why the new heads of the C.B.C. must understand fully the intent of parliament in passing the bill.
Sir, on invitation and speaking entirely on my own behalf, I addressed the Canadian Club in Winnipeg on December 8, 1966. I said at that time:
The problem which 1 wish to place before you today, after a long period of developing concern and heart searching, I believe to be of the greatest possible importance to Canada.
I expressed the conviction that the communications media is the nervous system of nationhood, that any defect or illness in this nervous system can be just as crippling to a country as to a human body.
I tried to develop in my thoughts at that time the importance of the Greek idea of balance to liberty and to the democratic idea. The Greeks were not content to leave things as they found them, but they employed restraint in the process of improvement and the result has been distinguished by the quality of balance and completeness. Then I made this point:
By way of direct contrast to this Greek view of balance a "new" philosophy is now being expounded by a determined group in the communications media.
That was the one point that I developed, that Canadians were now being subjected to propaganda and, even more serious, to censorship by exclusion.
My address was made to a large room full of people but later there were thousands of requests for the address and I became quickly seized of the fact that this was one of the primary concerns to Canadians at large.


I had been told that this is a subject a politician does not discuss, that a man may pull down Canada, the church, the family, anything, but the one thing he cannot put his finger on and hope to survive is the real establishment in Canada, the opinion-makers who direct broadcasting output. I was told that if he does he is finished. I do not believe this at all.
The most important thing as we look at this bill is not to consider only the organization of this most important industry-this has been done thoroughly and very well -but to deal with the basics, the final product, the question of output. I am extremely proud of the government that I have the honour to support, of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), for what I think is courageous leadership at this time in this direction. I believe that this great Canadian creation, the C.B.C., is in very truth the nervous system of nationhood. It has stirred us with tremendous contributions during the last three decades. I can think of the compelling reporting of the war years, our recent centennial triumphs, the poignancy of the Vanier funeral, the excellence of its sports coverage, its over-all technical brilliance-these have all contributed to our becoming a nation. In many respects our C.B.C. is the finest national system in the world, and I have visited a number of national systems in Europe and Asia.
This past year has proved on many occasions just how good Canadian broadcasting can be at its best. But at the same time within the C.B.C. we have become aware of pockets of positive danger in important sectors of programming. Sir, I feel we dare not return now to the cynical defeatist, nation-dividing atmosphere of the immediate precentennial, pre-Expo era. Journalists tell us Expo has spelled the end of cynicism. I think Canadians are determined to move forward together from the celebrations of 1967 to new triumphs in a great new century.
Turning to the bill I particularly want to address myself to those clauses under Part I. I am delighted with the structure of the bill. It speaks of preserving and strengthening "the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada." I think Mr. Lubor Zink suggested that the operative words might be "to safeguard, enrich and strengthen." Then, in clause 2(d) the bill goes on to speak of varied and comprehensive programming, providing "reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of
November 3, 1967

public controversy." How absolutely vital this is to any viable democratic system.
In clause 2(g) (i) the bill speaks of a "balanced" service of information, and in paragraph (iv) it says that the system should "contribute to the development of national unity."
I refer to the language used by the Secretary of State when she said:
Perhaps the most important feature of the C.B.C.'s mandate in the new bill is the obligation to contribute to the development of national unity.
Then she said:
-the C.B.C. has an overriding responsibility to be objective and balanced in its presentation of news and commentaries on public affairs.
Later she referred to Adlai Stevenson's comment that freedom demands infinitely more care and attention than any other system.
That is why this bill is one of the most important that I have ever tried to discuss since entering parliament. Sir, I agree completely with the solid foundations laid by R. B. Bennett. I have read carefully the debates which took place when the bill was introduced originating the C.B.C. where, financed by the people of Canada, we produced an entity independent from government. This bill, I think, is an attempt to make broadcasting more truly the servant of the Canadian people, the perfect mirror of truth and culture.
When I use the word "culture" I like Somerset Maugham's statement:
The value of culture is its effect on character. It avails nothing unless it ennobles and strengthens that. Its use is for life. Its aim is not beauty, but goodness.
Sir, in the 15 odd years of television we have had four voluminous volumes of evidence studying this problem, the Aird commission, the Massey commission, the Fowler commission and the Glassco commission, in addition to parliamentary committees at an average of one every two years. Yet today there is a widespread concern about the state of broadcasting in Canada.
The conclusions drawn by the Aird royal commission are still relevant. The first of these was that broadcasting should be carried out in the interests of Canadian listeners and in the national interest. The second was that where religious broadcasting is allowed there should be regulations prohibiting statements of a controversial nature. This is still important. I do not want to dilate on this point now but I think it is a matter of concern to
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting many Canadians. The third was that broadcasting of political matters should be carefully restricted under arrangements mutually agreed upon by all political parties.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
May I touch on what is one of the most grievous aspects of the general problem, the problem of national unity. When I came to the House of Commons as an opposition member in 1961 I was deeply concerned to discover that there were increasing misunderstandings and tensions between English and French Canadians. Having been brought up in Quebec and having many friends in that province, I found it difficult to understand how people who live together and love one another as much as the people of Canada do could become involved in such a family tangle. I started to examine the reasons for it. One thing which shocked me was that a man who appeared to be rather undistinguished, Dr. Chaput, the separatist, had more time on the national network than the then leader of the government, Right Hon. John G. Dief-enbaker. I could not comprehend this. Then I found that for a period of months after my leader became Prime Minister the same thing obtained. Marcel Chaput, who appeared to represent virtually nobody, was more important to the media than either the former prime minister or the new prime minister. He stimulated a series of programs which seemed calculated to rake the French-English issue.
I received a letter from Quebec city dated May 26, 1966, written by one of the most progressive and highly qualified leaders in French Canadian university life today. I would prefer to withhold his name, but I may say that he is a man who is very greatly respected thoughout this country. He said:
Far from being interested in seeing these grievances settled, they-
He is referring to the broadcasting producers.
-are using every means possible to create friction between English and French Canadians. They are attempting to show a false image of the English Canadians even to the extent of distorting all that comes from Ottawa-the more animosity there is between the two ethnic groups, the more the success of their course is assured-this instrument that lives on our citizen's taxes is a far cry from contributing to national unity-certain proposals put before the parliamentary committee are purely anarchist when one reads between the lines.
3868	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
He added this warning:
Chaos can only increase-and the only ones to gain from the situation are those who wish the destruction of democracy and the confederation.
Some time ago the then prime minister of Quebec, Hon. John Lesage, planned to make a trip to western Canada. This, I believe, was a little embarrassing to some federal politicians because there was a federal election brewing at that time and reactions to such a visit could cause difficulty in many constituencies. I took the trouble to read very fully what Hon. John Lesage in fact said whenever he was in the west. I read this carefully in the western press. I was amazed at the difference between what appeared on national television and the reports which appeared in the daily press. They were not the same reports at all. This bothered me. Actually, by press reports Mr. Lesage got an excellent reception everywhere he spoke. I should like to go back a short period in order to show that there appears to be a pattern in this regard. A feature article by J. B. Lamb appeared in the Toronto Star of April 3, 1964. Mr. Lamb said:
There is a very real need for some measure to be instituted which would bring the viewpoint of Canada's national broadcasting service closer to that of the people it purports to serve and represent-all kinds of programming is in effect unconsciously slanted to the left.
These are strong words coming from the Toronto Star. The lead article continues:
Perhaps the most eloquent testimonial to the slanting of programming by the C.B.C. was Roger Lemelin's recent admission that Quebec separatists had been able to infiltrate the C.B.C. and had "succeeded in making the term private enterprise almost a dirty word of C.B.C. transmissions." Mr. 1 .erne!in chuckled over the success of his friends in using C.B.C., a federal instrument, as the "unwitting vehicle for separatist sentiment".
I should like to remind hon. members that the date of that article is April 3, 1964. Now coming up to date, I have a letter which I received from the head of the department of communication arts of Loyola College dated October 21 last which takes strong exception to Mr. Patrick Watson's treatment of the Quebec Liberal convention on the production of The Way It Is on Sunday, October 15. I suppose one might have reasonably supposed that the almost unanimous rejection by Quebec Liberals of the separatist Levesque would have been received with sympathy on a Canadian network.
How did Mr. Watson handle this most important news item? I should like to quote

DEBATES	November 3, 1967
from the letter of Rev. Dr. John E. O'Brien. He said:
-what emerged finally was a most sympathetic treatment of Rene Levesque, a rebuke to the Quebec Liberal party for supposedly packing the convention, and the statement reiterated several times that with Levesque's departure the party in all probability had lost its dynamism.
In his letter to me he went on:
Does not freedom of speech demand that there be no censorship by exclusion? In my opinion the public has been shortchanged consistently for the past few years through the informal censorship exercised by production teams who have been writing their own ticket-and policy be damned.
And that from the reverend gentleman, who incidentally holds his Ph.D. in the field of communications.
I should like to refer to an article by Frank Howard entitled "A Very Political Press" which appeared in the Globe magazine in which he discusses the annual convention of the Rassemblement pour l'lndependance Nationale and says that it showed clearly the extent to which Quebec's separatists influence the news media. He said:
There were at least half a dozen delegates to the R.I.N. convention in Trois-Riviferes earlier this month who hold key positions in the French language media. Most of these came from Radio-Canada (the C.B.C.) but a few daily newspapers were also represented on the convention floor.
This, of course, does not take into account those who were official delegates.
It is not only the French language side but also the English language side of the C.B.C. which is involved in this. The English language network had more working representatives at the R.I.N. convention than the French network. I ask the question, what is this in aid of? Bruce West in the Globe of October 20, 1967, calls it the "numbers game" and shows a picture of Levesque at the mike. He says rather innocently:
I am sure that there are many who would agree with me when I say that to my unstatistlcal eyes and ears the C.B.C.'s emphasis upon French Canadian hopes and aspirations and demands and charges has far outweighed that devoted to the principle that Canada should remain one strong and undivided nation.
He said:
-one might be justified in asking the ridiculous question of how many times Quebec's Rene Levesque appeared on the C.B.C.'s national network as compared, say, with any politician of similar rank in Ontario?
I have taken a little trouble to work that out. I can assure you that there is absolutely
November 3, 1967

no comparison. Nor has C.B.C. been lair to the real representatives of Quebec.
I believe that every one of Canada's bogeymen has been created by television.
I should like to quote from a column in the Montreal Star headed "Television And Radio" in which Bernard Dube, under the heading "Levesque's Separatism A Thorn For C.B.C.", says:
Levesque was employed under a 13-program contract as an interviewer-commentator on The Public Eye last season. Public Eye executive producer Richard Nielsen had spoken to him about rejoining the program this season.
The article continues:
It is no secret that separatist feelings are held by many employed in French C.B.C. here.
Then we find a lead article by Frank Howard in the Globe and Mail of September 15, 1967 under the heading "Separatist Element Of Radio-Canada Draws Bitter Attack". He mentions the contribution of a member of the Laurendeau-Dunton royal commission and writes that this commissioner said:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
-somebody has to tell Radio-Canada that it has a duty to support Canadian unity.
If you will forgive me, I say thank God for Judy. I hope the whole country will join with me in respect for this gallant lady who served her country once in uniform and who is now doing her level best for the unity and freedom of Canada today.


Robert William Prittie: Would the hon. member permit a question? What is he driving at? Is he suggesting that Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon should not be allowed to appear on C.B.C. radio or television in future?


John Ross Matheson: No, by no means. I think as my argument develops it will be obvious that I believe we have the kind of society which is strong enough to withstand every shade of political, ideological and social opinion. However, I do not want to hear just one side of an argument all the time, and therein lies the problem.
This article then states:
Mr. Gagnon's suggestion that the French network is being taken over by separatist sympathizers or sensationalists, is an accurate reflection of the things being said about C.B.C. news-
The article states that Mr. Gagnon said:
-the essential vice of radio Canada is that it has escaped public control.
The strange thing is that everyone in this house agrees that politicians should keep
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting their hands off broadcasting. We do not want to censor broadcasting, nor do we want the people in this media steering Canada in directions that may be against Canada's interest in regard to either domestic or international policy. I think this is vitally important. Let me refer to the Montreal Gazette of October 26 which had this to say under the heading, "Person To Person":
Rene Levesque gets another chance to air his separatist views when he is interviewed on the Pierre Berton show come next Monday.
Don't we make great stars of these people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They don't make a star of me.


John Ross Matheson: I have an editorial from CKMI-TV in which they speak of the danger of reporting only one group's opinion:
-Jean-Louis Gagnon stated in a speech... at Montmorency House .. . that the French network should not be a propaganda machine for clandestine groups.
The editorial continues:
Mr. Gagnon recalled a director from the network saying that:	"he never believed and did not
believe that the corporation owed allegiance to the cause of Canadian unity." This has all the earmarks of the Goebbels era.
A head of one key section of French language C.B.C. told Professor J. E. O'Brien recently that only a very small number of French Canadians agree with separatism. This is precisely what he said:
Our job is to educate and lead the rest to become separatists.
The Saturday Citizen of October 14, 1967 contained an article by Bruce Phillips which was carried by all Southam newspapers in Canada. The heading is, "Are Programs Being Slanted?" The subheading is, "Now It's Separatism Inside The C.B.C.". We have learned to respect Bruce Phillips who has been reporting for some time. He has this to say:
The presence of separatist sympathizers, and in some cases separatist party members, is an acknowledged fact. It is accepted as fact by Marcel Ouimet, vice-president in charge of the French language network, and has long been common knowledge inside the province.
Mr. Phillips then writes:
One current figure is that about 60 per cent of the news department is separatist-oriented.
Mr. Phillips continues:
-Roland Dugre, newly-elected president of the Quebec chamber of commerce, said in a speech last Saturday that C.B.C. programs are being slanted toward promotion of separatist and socialist ideas.
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
"It seems completely illogical that the C.B.C., a public corporation functioning through taxes imposed on all Canadians, should become an instrument for destroying Canada"-
All this is backed up by current copies of newspapers just available.
The Montreal Gazette of November 2, 1967 carried an article by Claude Arpin about this same subject. He writes:
It's one of the first things you notice on entering Radio Canada's newsroom on the fifth floor of the C.B.C. building on Dorchester Blvd.
[DOT]-the sign is one of those mini-plates introduced last February by Le rassemblement pour l'inde-pendence nationale.
Later in the article he states:
-after sticking around a few hours you learn that the sign is fairly representative of the feeling among the 40-odd French and English speaking writers, editors and newscasters in charge of C.B.C.'s Montreal news operation.
Then Mr. Arpin states that the vice president has said:
A thorough investigation into the matter has already been initiated.
If anyone would like a well documented story about this he should read the article in the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, November 2 under the heading "Radio-Canada Separatist Charges Make Purge Possible." The article sets out ten distinct incidents which seem to document the fact that the C.B.C., which is paid for at a pretty high price by all Canadians, is being used surreptitiously and clandestinely to destroy that which all of us here support, namely, Canada.


Mr. Laniel:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that not long ago the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) was asked by Pierre Bourgault, the leader of the R.I.N. party, if he was interested in appearing on C.B.C. programs and on Radio Canada in Montreal? The two were in a restaurant in Sept isles in that part of the province of Quebec where Mr. Bourgault ran for provincial election. Mr. Bourgault told Mr. Blouin that any time he wanted to appear on the Radio Canada network all he had to do was ask him because all his friends were there.


John Ross Matheson: That seems to confirm the conclusion reached in this article in the Gazette which says:
-on the French network, in the prime viewing time following the hockey game, we saw, in order, Francois Aquin, Rene Levesque, and the hon. member for Lapointe-

The latter is now trying to enlist sympathizers from outside Canada for the destruction of this country. The article in the Gazette then carries this statement:
No one here has forgotten how skilfully Dr. Marcel Chaput used his firing from the civil service several years ago to win sympathy for the separatist cause in Quebec.
John Steinbeck tells us that the changes of the last 20 years have been enormous but we have come finally to the entrenched core of rebellion which must be removed before we can travel on into a liveable future. He is referring to the continuation of our free democratic society.
Carl Mydans is one of the great photographers of our time. He is also something of a philosopher. He writes something I picked up in Bangkok.
One of the hackneyed phrases used about photography is that the camera never lies... it is far from true. Once a man has been attached to it, the camera immediately has a point of view. And once it has a point of view, we are all free to question what it says. The moment the photographer selects a position from which to take his picture ... the mood he chooses to convey reflects his personal point of view. Indeed, he may utilize one of the most effective methods he knows to express himself... he may elect to make no picture at all. He just passes up the photograph which would present what he does not want to present, or which is in contradiction to what he has been presenting.
My criticism of the C.B.C. is summed up in three words-censorship by exclusion. May I call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. It being one o'clock this house is signing off until 2.30 this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment I was speaking about the importance of presenting, particularly in the realm of public affairs, truth; and truth involves the state of being complete, whole or unbroken. The Prime Minister gave an address in November, 1966, in which he spoke about Canada's aspiration to achieve not so much the great society but the good society, a nation not dedicated primarily to bigness and power but to more enduring values, a nation devoted to excellence in all things.
November 3, 1967	COMMONS
I covet for Canada excellence in communications based on the principle that our airwaves are, as this bill declares, public property. The view that there should be in the presentation of public affairs balance and completeness is, I regret, not shared by everybody. In fact there are well known personalities who express quite the opposite view. May I refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly of November 26, 1966. In that article Mr. Patrick Watson wrote:
The C.B.C. now describes its public opinion responsibility as some kind of fantastic juggling act designed to produce balance among extremes whatever their value.
He added:
A better job to undertake would surely be to destroy or confuse, or upset public opinion.
The hon. lady in her important policy speech declared:
The C.B.C. has, of course, a very special responsibility to maintain objectivity as a corollary to freedom from censorship and pre-editing of programs.
Again I refer to the views of Mr. Laurier Lapierre. In an article which appeared in the spring, 1966, issue of Actra he indicated that he would have the immense resources of talent and energy which the C.B.C. possesses put to the task of questioning Canadians and their leaders on his oft-repeated theme, "our endorsement of the United States role in this dreadful affair, Viet Nam", and also of providing an analysis of what he described, from his party's viewpoint, as "the bankruptcy of Canadian political leadership." He proposes that the facilities of the C.B.C. be mobilized to convert public opinion throughout the nation to the views which he regards as socially desirable.
Farmer Tissington, who has been in the press gallery for a number of years and is a friend of many of us, speaking over the air in a report from Ottawa on May 27, 1966, described the trend in television programming which "has alarmed and dismayed many Canadians." He went on to say:
The C.B.C. is, after all, a publicly owned and tax supported medium and yet it has been used increasingly to espouse moral, religious, social and political beliefs which are surely almost wholly at odds with those of a great majority of Canadians.
The minister declared in her speech:
But this privilege of free speech carries .with it a heavy responsibility and must be exercised with due regard to the public interest.
Let us not overlook the importance of prime time and what can be done with prime
DEBATES	3871
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting time in nation to nation broadcasting. There have been, we know, in different western countries persistent attempts to subvert our society. Let us never forget that Guy Burgess, a committed spy who delivered his country's most intimate secrets to Russia while serving in the foreign office and later as assistant private secretary to the foreign secretary, Mr. Hector McNeil, started out his career with three years' service in the B.B.C. The program feature he handled was called This Week In Westminster. It was the inspiration for a later British program called That Was The Week That Was.
Our C.B.C. Seven Days format was largely a follow-up of That Was The Week That Was. I have wondered, and I have heard this question asked in England, whether Burgess did more damage to his country by acting as an espionage agent or as a broadcaster. Time and Tide of October 3, 1963, called this program sinister. This article says:
It is now sinister. To turn Catholics against the Jews is no service to the Jews or to the country. The young men let loose in "That Was The Week That Was" will find it easy to sow in shallow minds distrust of British institutions whether royalty, religion or morality. Does Mr. Carleton Greene realize the power he is letting irresponsibles use? If he does not, someone should tell him.
The problem continues to be serious in England. I have been interested in the development of that sad situation and read the London Sunday Express of September 17, 1967, in which there is very serious criticism of the television and radio programs in Britain, which appear to many people intended to undermine that country. The article states:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The fact that news bulletins and current affairs programs have a left-wing bias is hardly disputed ... Day after day by omission, slant, innuendo or even a tone of voice, news is far from objectively presented.
I would commend this full-page article on the British situation to anybody who is interested. In the earlier part of my remarks I referred to what we know to be one of the major problems in Canada, the English-French problem and its television development. This is only illustrative of many other subjects in respect of which we have been subjected to quite unbalanced treatment with regard to public affairs, both domestic and international. I have been disturbed when listening to the news from Washington, which is delivered daily by Mr. James F. Minifie. Upon making detailed comparisons afterwards to ascertain the extent to which these reports harmonized with reports
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in the New York Times and the key Washington press, I find that there has been a substantial and disturbing difference. Our influence on many problems, our ability to cope, is influenced by how much we know. It was Chairman Mao in his celebrated speech at the Yenan forum who declared that today the media is the greatest revolutionary weapon in the world. If we rely on this media to cover public affairs we must use it fairly and with balance.
I must speak now, sir, of the representations we have had from ACTRA. Of course, every Canadian wants more Canadian talent to be used. I think it is very important that the ACTRA people-I notice some of them in the gallery-as a group realize regarding this wonderful broadcasting team that has been developed with all their skill, that their future as well depends on the integrity with which their skills and abilities are actually used. The Toronto Telegram speaks about the C.B.C.'s strategic position for propaganda and refers to precious people like LaPierre, Watson, Haggan and Leiterman. "Without them in the strategic positions the indirect but very effective left-wing manipulation of public opinion in Canada could suffer a temporary setback". I feel that Canadians deserve to understand these influences and are entitled from now on to the fullest and fairest treatment of public affairs.
The great David Sarnoff, suckled on the Old Testament and the prophets, truly believed in his new country, America, in her people and goodness. He ushered the United States into the electronic age. Indeed, his faith helped build the modern United States. I would beg our C.B.C. producers to think better of themselves and their potential worth to our own good society. I would invite them to give leadership in the creation of what may become the first modern, technological, prosperous, humane and reverent civilization. They have a unique part to play in tracing the grand design for Canada, the design in which wholeness becomes holy, in which love leads to the mountain top. We would invite our producers to experiment, to risk, to be alive and to be relevant. Above all, we urge them to become involved in their country and to show by their works their faith in Canada and its people.
I recall the very moving message of the new president when President Kennedy was assasinated. He asked all who speak, all who teach, all who preach, all who publish, all who broadcast and all who read and listen to

reflect upon their responsibilities to bind up our wounds, to heal our souls, to make our society well and whole for the task ahead of us. As a visitor to Expo declared, Canada's prospects are far greater than her problems. Now we must venture on to far greater achievements, confirmed by faith and hope in the search for ever larger freedom. Thus may we continue in that love of mankind and that loyalty which Ruskin said was the noblest concept that man had found in his long wanderings through the wilderness.


Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Monfagnes: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The few comments which I would like to make are not exactly a criticism of Bill No. C-163 but are the thoughts coming to my mind now that the bill is before the house.
Due to the special character of my comments, allow me to continue in English.

When a member of this house rises to speak on the subject matter of a bill, especially as comprehensive as Bill No. C-163, his natural temptation is to try to cover every point made in the bill in order to offer his ideas and comments on each one which he accepts or rejects. I should like to resist that temptation, sir, and limit my remarks to two specific points, not because no more could be said but rather because I believe that other speakers will cover the other points adequately. My decision is made much easier by the fact that the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) in her opening statement and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in launching the opposition's stand have already pinpointed, and very creditably so, the main areas of agreement and disagreement and have also indicated the kind of treatment to which this legislation will be subjected in the ensuing stages of the debate.
My remarks, which will be brief, are almost entirely inspired by clause 2, subclause (g), paragraph (iv), which reads as follows:
The national broadcasting service should . ..
(iv) contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
A quotation from the objectives of the bill as detailed in the white paper reads as follows:
The determination to develop and maintain a national system of radio and television broadcasting in Canada is an essential part of the continuing resolve for Canadian identity and Canadian unity.
November 3, 1967	COMMONS
A statement from the standing committee's unanimous report, already quoted by the minister, reads:
A distinctly Canadian broadcasting system is essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century.
My first point, Mr. Speaker, I admit is a delicate one, and perhaps more so at this particular time. I hope all members will approach it in the same rational, realistic and patriotic spirit that I have. My point is illustrated in clause 40 of the bill, although many hundreds of other examples could be given to illustrate the same point. Clause 40 reads:
(1)	Except as provided in subsection (3) of section 38, the corporation is, for all purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
(2)	The corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into contracts in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the corporation.
(3)	Property acquired by the corporation is the property of Her Majesty and title thereto may be vested in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the corporation.
(4)	Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the corporation on behalf of Her Majesty, whether in its name or in the name of Her Majesty, may, subject to subsection (3) of section 42, be brought or taken by or against the corporation in the name of the corporation in any court that would have jurisdiction if the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty.
The words "Her Majesty" are repeated nine times in 18 lines. Not once do the words "Canada" or "parliament" or "government" or "Canadian people" appear in this clause dealing with agencies; yet this is a bill which has the avowed intention of promoting Canadian identity, Canadian unity, Canadian content and Canadian vitality in our second century. I feel very much at ease in speaking on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I am a monarchist. I am happy to be one because I believe it is the best system under which we can develop our particular diversity. I do not feel archaic in my belief when some of the most prosperous economies and stable democracies in the world today follow the same system. I refer to Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am satisfied to offer allegiance to the Queen of Canada, but I do not feel that I need to be reminded of my allegiance nine times in 18 lines in a bill, or each time I go to the movies, a hockey game or a football
DEBATES	3873
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting game. Indeed, I need to be reminded no more than I need to be reminded at every opportunity that I am the son of Leo Regimbal and Emma Frappier, or that I adhere to the Catholic faith, or that I reside in Quebec, or that I am a French Canadian, no matter how dear each of these facts is to me or how proud I am of each of them.
In speaking about this to many of my colleagues, I was told that this was strictly a matter of form and quite acceptable as such. This would be a good occasion, to my mind, to verify whether it really is so acceptable to everyone or whether it is not a denial of identity and even a source of impatience. If it is simply a matter of form, I would like to suggest that we re-examine the form, and an appropriate place to do this would be in committee. Therefore I would hope that the minister will find this another valid reason to justify our suggestion that the bill be sent to the standing committee before second reading in order to give members an opportunity to find a better form for our second century of Canadian confederation, without our having to follow the usual procedure of amendments which must be voted for or against. I believe we have attained a sufficient degree of maturity to agree on certain changes without questioning our allegiance to the crown.
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of my visit to the British pavilion at Expo where, after two hours of deliberate search for a picture of Her Majesty or even a reminder of royalty, there was no trace to be found except in one reproduction of a typical old British home where an elderly woman, sitting in an antique rocking chair with her pot of tea and her pet cat, is watching the coronation ceremonies on her six inch "telly". I am also reminded of that very dramatic moment during the opening ceremonies of our party's national convention when 15,000 people in Maple Leaf Gardens, in full view of four to five million Canadians, listened very respectfully to our guest artist sing "God Save our Queen" and very spontaneously, wholeheartedly and naturally joined her in singing "O Canada". This is the very point I am trying to make, sir.
Second, in seeking what Bill C-163 calls "the continuing expression of Canadian identity", I would like to speak on the question of Canadian content and the use of Canadian talent. In her opening remarks, as recorded on page 3749 of Hansard, first.
November 3, 19G7

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting column, first paragraph, the minister had this to say:
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 close and careful attention.
This part of the minister's statement is an obvious reference to the excellent report presented to members of parliament by the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists entitled "A Program For Better Broadcasting."
The fears of ACTRA are reflected in a letter to me from one of my constituents, Mr. Joseph Schull, of Cite des Deux Montagnes. Mr. Schull is a member of that association and a writer well known for his evocations of the drama in Canadian life. Without quoting the ACTRA report of Mr. Schull's letter of September 25, in order not to abuse the house's time and patience may I be allowed to paraphrase or summarize their viewpoints, which most members and the Secretary of State have already had an opportunity to study, and to offer my comments.
The report deplores the fact that more and more American programs are invading our Canadian network. Mr. Schull points out that "a Canadian national consciousness is not being fostered by this material; it is being dulled and deadened". He points to a C.B.C. press release on this season's programs on the English network which showed that there were to be less Canadian programs and more from the United States. The Canadian programs included ten in the series Hatch's Mill which were shot last year but not released until now, ten new Wojeck programs and none of the series Quentin Durgens, M.P., although ten are being made for release in the fall of 1968.
A full list of United States programs would take too long to recite, so I will give only some of them: The Danny Thomas Show, High Chaparral, Everywhere A Chick-chick, The Mothers-in-Law, Dundee and the Culhane, He and She, Gentle Ben, Moby Dick, Shazzam, Dragnet 1967, Mission Impossible, Walt Disney Presents, Green Acres,

The Ed Sullivan Show, Bonanza, Search for Tomorrow, The Guiding Light, As the World Turns, The Edge of Night, Hogan's Heroes, The Man form U.N.C.L.E., Get Smart, Bugs Bunny, The Beverly Hillbillies.
Both Mr. Schull and the ACTRA report point out, among other things, that American sponsors are getting a good deal in cornering great segments of our prime radio and television time, that we as Canadians could tighten up on our allocation of prime time without losing the big advertisers, and that special allotments of time and money should be made available by the C.B.C. to encourage, foster and promote Canadian talent. They suggest a sliding rule of tax deductible expenses according to the degree of Canadian content in programs and commercals, and other incentives. All of these observations are well made and deserve our close attention, and I trust that the minister will take them into account.
I believe, however-and I am sure members of ACTRA would agree-that money and time and proper concern are not the only solutions to our ills. I believe they are willing to look at this whole situation very objectively and realize the very great effort which they themselves must put forth in the fostering of their own worth-while cause and the improvement of their outlook and of their craft.
As far as money is concerned, centennial year was the occasion of more grants and allotments than ever before. But outside of the very many valuable documentaries which were produced, do we find a proportionate increase in valuable cultural production? Did we get better plays for it? What happened, for instance, to the Canada centennial play? Is money the only answer?
So far as prime broadcast time is concerned, do we have the machinery and the facilities and the bodies to fill these item slots with entertaining, artistic Canadian products? Or can we hope to compensate for United States film-making facilities with a $10 million film development board? Will provision of a budget devoted to the development of new Canadian material be the end of our problem?
I have no doubt whatsoever that Canadian producers, actors, designers and technicians need not take second place to anyone in the world. As a matter of fact, wherever they go their talent matches the best in the world, only more so because they bring to their new
November 3, 1967

environment that special Canadian characteristic of being able to adapt to new circumstances and understand the point of view of others.
I believe that their greatest challenge today-and I am sure that they can pick up the challenge-is their professional proficiency. The best incentive to creativity, to new expressions, to higher quality, must be their own desire to perfect their art, their trade and their craft for their own sake. They must be culture-oriented much more than money-oriented. Their greatest endeavour must constantly be the production of beauty and entertainment, more than the saleability of their talent, and they must resist the financial appeal of the United States market which everyone seems to agree is not overculturally inclined.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The experience of French speaking artists could be a good example to follow. They have had to ignore outside attractions because the market was not readily accessible to them. They had to concentrate on their own development to find new expressions which were attractive to their public. As a consequence, the result has been beneficial to them, to their art, to their public and to their culture.
For the closer consideration of both points which I have tried to make as well as for other points which have been made and will be made by other speakers, I appeal again to the hon. lady to refer the bill to the standing committee before which, in a clause by clause study, amendments might be moved without the partisan pressures of house votes. If that is done I am sure, as was the case in the study of the white paper, that unanimity will prevail and that the bill will have the enthusiastic and confident launching it deserves and which we all so earnestly desire.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter before us interests all of us because of the all-pervasive influence of broadcasting in modern times. Before going into details as to why I think this bill is excellent and why all members of the house should support it, I wish to deal with some points raised by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Matheson). Hearing my colleague talk of the influence of separatists in Radio-Canada, and hearing other criticisms directed at the operations of the C.B.C, its programming, and
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting especially that programming in the public affairs area, I felt fortified in what I had concluded for some time, that the two solitudes in the C.B.C., the division between management and the creative people in the corporation, are the crux of the problem.
Our conduct in this house shows that we do not accept the axiom of two solitudes in the corporation. Rather, we hold management responsible for what the producers do, and we should pay more than lip service to this view. Over the years as well as recently there has been much talk about the independence of the creative people. Much sympathy has been extended to the producers who have claimed that there has been unwarranted interference in their activities by management. In my mind it is impossible to reconcile-and I am talking about the C.B.C.-how one can hold management responsible for what the C.B.C. does by way of programming or anything else and on the other hand agree with the producers that management should not interfere in the creative side of productions. Anyone espousing these two viewpoints in my opinion holds views that are irreconcilable. From now on we must hold management responsible for all phases of C.B.C. operation. If we do that, and I see no alternative to this, then when we criticize the French network of the corporation, Radio-Canada, for its alleged attitude in allowing too many with separatist viewpoints to express their opinions over its network, we are obviously holding management responsible.
The C.B.C. has had a difficult time. Over the last eight to ten years there have been a series of investigations, parliamentary committees, commissions, and reports by bodies such as the Glassco commission with respect to the corporation. The time of the top people in C.B.C. management must have been largely devoted to supplying information, preparing briefs and appearing before such investigating bodies.
After this debate and when the bill becomes law perhaps we can draw the line and not investigate the corporation any further. Let us hope that the new management will take over the C.B.C. and that the corporation will operate under the new law without excessive interventions by politicians.


Mr. Nielsen:: Speak to the minister.


John Carr Munro: 
Robert William Prittie: On reflection would the hon. member not consider that the word "treason" is a bit strong in this case?
3878	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


John Carr Munro: Well, perhaps in terms of parliamentary proprieties I could use a weaker word. I do not know how else to explain some of the statements made by the hon. member which I have read.
In any event, to get back to the bill in question, I think we have all agreed that broadcasting must have some distinction in Canada as one of the most investigated and studied areas of national concern in the past decade. Royal commissions and parliamentary committees, all involving hundreds of sessions, have filled thousands of pages. It is difficult for any member to say anything in this debate that has not been said before by a great many people.
The studies leading to the introduction of the present bill have been exhaustive. The Fowler committee, the many hearings and deliberations of the broadcasting committee, the numerous reports and briefs submitted to these bodies and to the government, and the sometimes enlightening, sometimes discouraging public debate that followed the introduction of the government white paper, have all played a major part in bringing us to the point we are at today.
Regardless of how any of us may feel about the contents of the bill before us and regardless of the reactions of the broadcasters of Canada, all of us, parliamentarians and broadcasters, must share some pleasure in the fact that we now have the long-awaited bill only a short distance from final passage. For myself I can only express my agreement with the principles laid down in the bill and the means by which they are to be implemented. And we can do little more than discuss principles and possibilities for no act, no piece of legislation, is capable of determining the final product that appears on our television screens. We cannot legislate programs; we can only set down those fundamental guide lines which will establish the broad concepts within which we shall expect those who determine programming to act.
The major point of this bill is the strengthening of the principle of public broadcasting in Canada. The bill reaffirms our faith in the ability and the opportunity of public broadcasting to act as the basic foundation of our broadcasting system. It means that the C.B.C., which in the past has earned distinction throughout the world for both programming and technical achievement, is to carry on its role as the kingpin of our national service. This is a highly desirable feature. We in Canada have no national press as do many of the European countries. We have no
[Mr. Prittie.l
DEBATES	November 3, 1967
means by which a national viewpoint may be communicated to all of our citizens except through a coast to coast broadcasting system, radio and television, French and English, whose mandate above all is service before profit.
Broadcasting in Canada serves other purposes than the mere coverage of events which are of political significance. It serves not only as a reflection of the thinking of Canadians but indeed as a vital link in the actual existence of the country. It remains the greatest single means for fostering Canadian talent, the greatest single outlet for the creative energies of artistic persons in Canada, the vital link in the development of a national consciousness that supersedes provincial and parochial boundaries. It is the greatest single common experience of all Canadians. My reading of this bill leads me to believe that it is the strengthening of all of these responsibilities which the government has set down as the task of Canadian broadcasters, but particularly that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Only the C.B.C. can accomplish these aims, and largely only the C.B.C. can be expected to do so. The private broadcasters have their responsibilities and their role to play in the broadcasting system. But they are limited in the extent of the kind of achievement I am talking about by economics and by the simple fact that the only other television network in Canada, the Canadian television network, C.T.V., has no French operation.
There is only one organ of truly national broadcasting character in Canada and that is our public system. I have argued on other occasions that the 55 per cent Canadian content regulation now in existence may be a mistake. It may be better that the private broadcasters produce a few truly good programs than that they produce a host of mediocre American copies that are neither Canadian in anything but name nor as good as the original foreign product.
There will be those who will see a serious fault in the absence from the bill of a clear statement respecting the purposes to which private broadcasters must address themselves. I do not entirely agree. All sectors of the private area affected by this bill have different capacities. There are many television stations in large markets in Canada which are abandoning their potential for public service and wallowing in the mire of relatively unrestrained profiteering. There are others that are conscientiously fulfilling
November 3, 1S67

their role as best they can, and there are still others that are overextending their capacities with the result that in the process the communities they are serving are put at a disadvantage.
The best course tor dealing with the private broadcasters is to judge them individually on the basis of the performance that can reasonably be expected of them, and penalize them severely if they do not reach such standards. Whether this means that they should be penalized to the extent of $100,000 is a matter on which I am sure there is less than unanimous agreement in the house. But the point is there in the bill as we have it that private broadcasters are to perform well or suffer. There is certainly nothing wrong with this concept.
The strength that has been assigned to the new Canadian radio commission should ensure that this policy is carried out. The commission-I do not propose to examine whether or not this name is suitable; that seems to me the least important of all the bill's aspects-is empowered not only to regulate with teeth the operations of the private broadcasters but has also some additional responsibilities which I am very pleased to see added.
First, the commission will have the sole authority for the granting of licences. While the government may refuse the recommendations of the commission it cannot, as is the case with the B.B.G., award the licences to someone else. This removes the stigma of political patronage or the allegation of political patronage from the granting of what are, after all, one of the most lucrative of all plums in this country. One can only applaud this step. While it might have been desirable for the bill to carry this principle to its full conclusion and remove power over licences entirely from government veto, it might also be argued that to do so would be to place too much power in the hands of the commission and eliminate any possibility of reversing what could be a bad decision. On occasion boards and commissions have been known to make mistakes. However, certainly any government is now forced to have very solid reasons for rejecting any recommendation from the commission.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Second, and of crucial importance, the C.R.C. is to have control over cable television. Had this not been included in the bill I for one could not have accepted it, because in the past we have grossly underestimated the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting potential role cable may play in the future of Canadian broadcasting. At the present time cable television serves to bring to the communities of Canada the signals of television transmission stations that, without cable, Canadians could not receive. What that means essentially is that cable brings United States television to Canadians. With such a function we cannot argue, whatever our personal preferences may be. Canadians want United States television and it is unfair that some should receive it while others cannot. So long as all Canadian signals are carried by community antenna services we shall have to accept the fact that more and more Canadians will have access to United States channels through cable.
In referring to the tremendous recognition of cable television we must look at the field of educational television. If educational television moves into the ultra high frequency channels, it will be unavailable to Canadians with regular television sets. It is possible that the only means through which they will be able to receive e.t.v. signals will be cable which can transfer the u.h.f signal to the v.h.f. home receiver channel. Conversion adapters are available, but the experience in the United States in the last decade does not lend optimism to the belief that the public-will necessarily pay for them. Even if it is; made mandatory, as it should be, that all set manufacturers include u.h.f. in all new sets, it will still be some years before Canadians will be fully able to receive u.h.f. signals without assistance of some kind, and cable is the most likely helper.
Given all these points and many others of a similar nature it seems to me it would be wise and forward-looking to include all cable operations under the terms of reference of a broadcasting commission. In all the private areas of concern, then, the C.R.C. is to have wide-ranging powers. I have yet to read of any real opposition to this principle. Indeed, I have been encouraged by the very favourable reaction which this bill has received from editorial writers across the country and from private broadcasters who, while disagreeing with minor provisions of the bill, have nevertheless greeted it without the severe words which they have employed on other occasions.
I repeat, however, that important as all these aspects are it remains that the singular feature of this bill around which our system is to be built is the role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the public system. To it has been assigned the challenge of
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting maintaining and improving the functions I mentioned previously. I have some suggestions I should like to make to the C.B.C. in this regard, because it is not entirely fulfilling its present role, let alone what we hope will be its new one.
Before I mention these, however, I believe it is important that we recognize the achievements of the C.B.C. in the past year. Much as we may consider public affairs programming to be of overwhelming importance and our own appearances on such programs as the highlights of the television week, I think we also must recognize that these programs have very low audience participation, not only in Canada but in every western country, and that the standard of a television system should not be judged on public affairs alone, which too often is the tendency here. Often more social attitudes are communicated through entertainment programs than will ever seep through the ponderous proclamations of public affairs quality broadcasting.
Apart from public affairs the C.B.C. has done a remarkable job in the past year. Its continuous and superlative coverage of Expo '67 and all the centennial events, its special coverage of such events as the visit of the Queen, its special centennial variety programs, and its general entertainment performance have indeed been of a very high standard. No broadcasting system anywhere has ever had so much to cover and done it so well while in the same year the conversion to colour had to be made which by no means is a simple operation. C.B.C. programs have continued, as in the past, to quietly receive international awards of excellence in all fields. C.B.C. radio has earned a quiet place in the lives of many Canadians as the only alternative to the mind diversion which in general is the function of other radio stations in Canada.
The C.B.C. has done a good job. It has done a better job than most of us give it credit for, primarily because we become concerned with the C.B.C. usually only when it has done something we consider to be wrong. Certainly it has far surpassed anything the private broadcasters have done, as of course it should, given its public financial support and its mandate. If it has not been sufficiently Canadian in content, that is something which has been incumbent upon it because of the old act. If it has not produced a public image of internal efficiency, this has a great deal to do with the amount of time spent- and I have referred to this-by its senior

executives responding to the numerous demands of all those people investigating it and also has to do with the uncertainty with which the corporation has had to contend in awaiting this bill and, more important, the new officers.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Ouimet who soon will retire after a lifetime of service to the C.B.C. He has made mistakes during his presidency; he would be superhuman if he had not. We all make mistakes. He has sometimes acted in a way which those of us who know less than he have condemned through our public statements. But I know of no Canadian anywhere in this country who is more passionately and sincerely devoted to a simple love of Canada and the cause of national unity than this very honourable man. He is one of the few who can live in either a French or English Canadian atmosphere and feel at home. He has led the C.B.C. through its most difficult periods of development and adjustment to new circumstances. He has served with a modest integrity which I find superlative. Above all, he has been a committed devotee to the concept of public broadcasting and its responsibilities; he has given his life to a realization of that concept. We owe him a debt of gratitude which cannot be repaid in words.
We must now look to the future of the C.B.C. I hope that somehow this beleagured corporation can now look forward to a few years of peace during which it can put its house in a new order, because a new order is called for and it must take place with swiftness. Too many people in positions of responsibility, whose motives are above reproach, in recent times, have indicated that the C.B.C. French network has strong separatist tendencies in some areas. This is evident from the programs which appear on the French system. I dealt with this at the beginning. With reference to the criticism in this area, I do not see how it will be possible for the C.B.C. to cope with this in a constructive way unless the present C.B.C. management and the new C.B.C. management have the complete confidence of parliament and of the government, because if that type of confidence is not established I reiterate that this fact will be swiftly known to the Canadian people and to the employees of the corporation. It is beyond me how one can govern a corporation with 8,000 employees and be held responsible for their conduct in respect of all these programs when the employees themselves are all too aware that the management
November 3, 1967	COMMONS
does not have the confidence of the government and parliament.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What must be said to the C.B.C. now is that we all expect that changes will come in the foreseeable future and that the responsibility which is being entrusted to the corporation will be lived up to and respected. Commercial considerations and high ratings should not be the motivating factors in the C.B.C.'s re-thinking in respect of its programming. Under this bill the C.B.C. will come under the general supervision of the C.R.C. but it, unlike the private broadcasters, will be free of the penalties which the C.R.C. has the power to impose on others. Rather, the C.B.C. will remain responsible to parliament.
I agree with this aspect of the bill. There are some who, with what they consider to be good cause, would have the C.R.C. take responsibility for the C.B.C. in all matters. They would have the C.R.C. be the final body with control over C.B.C. operations. There are objections to this and, I think, realistic objections. First, I cannot imagine any morale surviving the complete emasculation of the C.B.C. An emasculation would be the result if the C.B.C. were to have its freedom of action and freedom of decision given to another body. Further, it would make meaningless the C.B.C. mandate, because it would be little more than a guide line to a puppet of a senior body, the C.R.C. Whatever may be the faults of the C.B.C., it has at least 30 years of experience in programming for Canadians and dealing with the demands that a mandate for national service implies. The C.R.C. has no such experience.
Second, much as I approve of the idea of a stronger regulating body, I would have serious objections to the C.R.C. having control over every outlet and thus every programming principle that is available to broadcasters and to Canadians generally. The power which would be delivered into the hands of this board, were it to have control over the C.B.C. as well, would be enormous. That type of enormous power I could not look upon gladly.
These arguments are academic, for the fact remains that the price that must be paid for the public broadcasting system, with the service that is the motivation and the rationale for such a system, is the inevitable responsibility of parliament for its performance. If we are to pay public money for the establishment and maintenance of a public system, if we are to give to a public system a mandate
DEBATES	3881
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting for national service, if we are to make a public service the paramount keystone of our broadcasting policy, then we cannot but accept the responsibility for what it does. There is no means by which we as parliamentarians can divest ourselves of the consequences of what we do.
For these many reasons I commend this bill to hon. members and I commend the minister for bringing it forward.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a bill which has as its purpose to lay down the broadcasting policy of the government and it is upon this policy that we have to render our judgment. Certainly that is the manner in which I have looked at the provisions of the bill. As I have looked at the bill in this light I believe it has presented a number of features which should cause grave anxiety to those who believe in the free expression of opinion in this country. What actually has happened here, I believe, is that the government has been unable to control the C.B.C. and unable to make it a rubbers tamp and is now trying to create a new device for the purpose of gaining that end.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Did you make it a
rubberstamp?


Erik Nielsen: I will have something to say about what the Conservatives did when they were in office in respect of the C.B.C.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary laud the president of the C.B.C. He suggested what a great Canadian he is and what a great job he has done. He went on to leave the impression that all members on the other side have great confidence in the president and the management of the C.B.C. Yet we were treated to the spectacle of the minister appearing on television and calling that management rotten. She was obviously embarrassed yesterday morning and this morning when attempting to deal with the questions directed to her. Some of her replies were astonishing.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They should not have been.


Erik Nielsen: I call them astonishing. I cannot understand how members on the other side can stand in their places, laud the president of the C.B.C. and tell us about the great confidence they have in the management when the minister responsible for reporting to parliament can refer to the management in the way she has done.
November 3, 1987

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
By this time she has no doubt received the letter Mr. Ouimet has sent in connection with her statement. It is one of the strongest letters I have ever seen or which has ever come to my attention.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: "Arrogant" is the word.


Erik Nielsen: The letter may be arrogant and I can find some sympathy with the minister here because I remember when this gentleman, as great a man as he is, appeared before the broadcasting committee and was asked questions concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco commission. He told us that the C.B.C. had a Glassco commission of its own. In his letter to the minister I believe Mr. Ouimet has been quite fair in requesting the minister to explain her charges.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member answer a question? Is he now suggesting to this chamber that any head of any agency who is responsible to parliament through the minister can require anything of the minister or the government? Is he now suggesting that the president of this or any other agency is above the elected representatives of the people?


Erik Nielsen: I believe the minister will realize that I am the last person to have that kind of an idea, having said what I have said in the past in this house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let us at least be in agreement on that point.


Erik Nielsen: Surely the minister does not believe that of me after what I have said in this house about bureaucracy and the dangers of the increasing control of that bureaucracy in respect of our way of life. However, in these circumstances the charges which have been levied by the minister require explanation. We have asked for an explanation here in the house but it has not been forthcoming. I believe the president of the C.B.C. and the entire management of the C.B.C. now have a right to a clarification. Indeed, it would seem that the Canadian people as a whole would require that a responsible minister should give explanations of the statements she has made.
Having referred to this letter to the minister dated November 3, perhaps I should preface any further remarks on it by reading the

last paragraph. It appears to bear the signature of the president and the paragraph reads in this way:
Because you have made your charges public I deem it essential that the corporation's positions also be made public and I am sending copies of this letter to the news media.
The letter has become public. If I have a copy of it, for heavens sake, it has to be public.


An hon. Member:: Not necessarily.


Erik Nielsen: In any event, this is what the president says:
My purpose in writing is to request that you provide the corporation with all the information in your possession on which you base the charges of "rotten management" within the corporation.
He is not asking this in respect of himself, the president. He then writes:
When serious charges of this nature are levelled against the corporation or its people, it is our practice and duty to ask for substantiation of the charges by those making them, so that the corporation may take immediate steps to verify or disprove the charges and to take appropriate action.
There is nothing unfair about that sort of request being made by Mr. Ouimet, not as an individual but on behalf of the whole corporation. The president then writes:
You will understand that the corporation cannot allow your public charges to remain unsubstantiated.
I draw the minister's attention to all the questions put to her in the house since the charges. The president then writes:
Such accusations are capable of destroying public confidence in a national institution which must have the respect and confidence of the people it was created to serve.
Let me remind hon. members of the remarks just made by the parliamentary secretary when he was speaking about confidence. The letter then states:
Further, such accusations cast serious aspersions on the entire management group of the corporation throughout the country and may do irremediable harm to the personal and professional reputations of all those within this group. If your charges are correct, they must be confined to those responsible and the corporation will take appropriate action.
Surely that is a highly responsible statement on the part of the president. The letter continues:
If they are not justified then the reputation of the corporation and its people must be cleared at the earliest possible moment.
The news reports state that you have had in your possession for two weeks or more the information "that there are some absolutely appalling
November 3, 1987

things that have gone on in the corporation" on which you presumably based your ''rotten management" charges.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am astonished that in the light of your particular responsibilities you did not see fit to immediately impart this information to the corporation so that your charges could have been proved or disproved and appropriate action taken. It is essential that the corporation be given all relative information which may be in your possession.
There is nothing arrogant about that request.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question? He may have said it, but I did not hear him. When was this letter sent?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know when the letter was sent but the copy in my possession, which is a photostat, is dated November 3, today. One of the quotations in it from the minister's statement, particularly "that there are some absolutely appalling things that have gone on in the corporation," was made this morning on the orders of the day, I believe, or yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend, is this a letter he got from the press gallery? Could he tell us the source?


Erik Nielsen: There is a sheet attached to this letter headed "C.B.C. Information Services." The date is November 3, 1967, and this sheet says:
Attached for your information is a copy of a letter sent today to the Secretary of State by the president of the C.B.C.
C.B.C. Information Services.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Mr. Fairwealher:: This is the minister's charge.


Erik Nielsen: The minister should give the house answers to the legitimate queries she has raised. If she wishes to do that now, I will gladly resume my seat.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Finish your speech. Don't deprive us of that.


Erik Nielsen: I think the minister really put her foot in it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You and the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) seem to have the same phrase.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry for the minister because she is obviously one who is fed up to the teeth with politics. We all get that way once in a while. She has already announced her intention to resign, so perhaps she does not care what she says.


John Napier Turner: Did you not say the same thing, that you were not going to run again?


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members were up on their reading of the press they would know that statement was refuted as soon as the opportunity afforded itself.


Murdo William Martin: All politicians get frustrated, even the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Erik Nielsen: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) must be the most frustrated politician in the house. He has ceased being a politician.


Murdo William Martin: I never get frustrated. I am always amused.


Mr. Churchill:: I sustain his interest in politics.


Murdo William Martin: You helped me this morning.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I think when the minister made his reference to frustration he meant to refer to my colleague, and not the member for Winnipeg South.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the hon. member's colleague.


Erik Nielsen: In any event, Mr. Speaker, if this bill embodies government broadcasting policy, then I believe, and it is a personal belief, that it appears to be an extremely dangerous policy indeed. The bill sets up a commission with the archaic title of Canadian radio commission. To this commission it gives absolute powers over broadcasting, including the granting and revoking of licences. To make matters even worse, it delegates those powers to a five-man executive committee. The powers of this executive committee are indeed frightening. I am not going to say anything about program content because I do not think that is relevant to the deeper principle involved in the bill.
There are many, and I sometimes count myself among them, who believe there is nothing really wrong with the C.B.C. that
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting reincarnation would not cure. The parliamentary secretary said that the whole purpose of the bill was to take broadcasting away from the realm of political intervention, so it could operate freely and not be subject to political pressures. I wonder whether he has forgotten the provision whereby appeals from the decisions of the commission can be taken to the minister. This leaves matters in a very unsatisfactory position.
A national broadcasting policy is referred to in the bill, but nowhere is this co-called national broadcasting policy defined. Anyone in conflict with the aims and objectives of the so-called national broadcasting policy can be speedily punished. And what a provision for punishment is contained in the bill-a fine of $100,000. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what private station will dare go against a decision of the executive committee, or the minister in her directions to that committee or the radio commission, if they have hanging over their heads the penalty of a fine of $100,000? What inducement is that to free speech and free programming in the country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Read the act.


Erik Nielsen: I have read the act. I have read it from cover to cover. The minister has one version of it and I have another.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Everybody in the country has one and you have another.


Erik Nielsen: I do not believe I am alone in the views I hold.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Nobody in broadcasting agrees with you on this.


Erik Nielsen: In effect what the act does is give the C.B.C. a mandate. That is what hon. members opposite have been saying. It gives the C.B.C. top priority over the private sector of broadcasting in this country. Hon. members opposite speak of that private sector as though it has a job to do, too, but that it is really incidental. This I believe is not the way to look at it at all.
This mandate is spelled out in clause 2 (h) of the bill, where the following words are used:
-where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail;

Nowhere are the objectives clearly spelled out; nor is it spelled out who or what body will establish that such a conflict has indeed arisen. Who makes, for instance, a decision, and on what basis is a decision made, as to what constitutes a "balanced", and I think that is the word used in clause 2 (g),-service of information? Who makes the decision as to what is balanced and what is unbalanced?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says parliament makes that decision. I respectfully submit to her that if this is her belief, she has not read the bill. The executive committee makes that decision, and the decision of the executive committee will be subject to political influence. The private sector of broadcasting is placed in a clearly disadvantageous and inferior position, not necessarily because it is less responsible than the C.B.C. but simply because it is private. This has long been one of the tenets of the bureaucrats in the Liberal hierarchy. That is why they are always going off the rails on matters of policy of this nature. They did it with respect to the minister of consumer affairs, as he has almost come to be known.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is not questioning parliament's decision on second reading of that bill, is he?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He is the same old
hatchetman.


Erik Nielsen: By gosh, Mr. Speaker, if I am a hatchetman I should take lessons from the minister, because I have not seen a better job than that done on the C.B.C. management in the last couple of days by the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hatchetwoman.


Erik Nielsen: We have had many examples of the awful urge of the Liberal party to control and regulate. I think they have a pathological compulsion to bureaucratize society. Under this bill they will make the C.B.C. supreme. The Conservative Government created the Board of Broadcast Governors in order that the C.B.C. might not be an uncontrollable octopus. I think that board has done a very good job. I may be alone in that opinion.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You are.


David Lewis: You are.
November 3, 1967


Erik Nielsen: Had it not been for the Conservative government under the former prime minister, there would be no private television in this country today. However, many of the best programs are broadcast over the private sector. We gave private television the opportunity to exist, and I believe private television is doing a good job in this country. This bill, if it is accepted in its present form, would relegate private television and private broadcasting to the back rooms in the decision making process. Indeed under this bill the private sector may be required to program anything that the executive committee might, to use the words of section 18, deem of special significance to Canadians. Who makes that decision? The executive committee does.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Or the cabinet.


Erik Nielsen: Or the cabinet, or the minister. The executive committee can literally tell any station in the private sector, "Well, we believe this program to be of special significance to Canadians, so you carry it." If the station does not, the result may be a $100,000 fine. Private television and radio are placed in the position where they must first come with their hats in their hands and placate the C.B.C. Then they must go on their hands and knees to this all powerful commission to which the members are appointed for seven years and from which they cannot be dislodged for seven years.
Private radio and television must appeal for mercy, for the right to live or the right to perform a service that I believe is on a great deal higher level than the parliamentary secretary, who spoke last, indicated. If these private stations do not do as they are told, if they are recalcitrant, then they can be fined $100,000. This is the big stick that will be wielded over private broadcasters, so they will not talk back. They will not even breathe back at this all-powerful executive committee.
Where does the power reside in this commission? It resides in the five members of the executive committee; that is where the power is, and they are in close consultation with the minister. We have the possibility and the strong probability under this set-up of direct intervention by government in every aspect of broadcasting. This of course is the dream of the Liberal party, to take over control, to regiment. This bill, if passed, will do nothing more nor less than set up a system of 27053-24SJ
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting thought police in broadcasting. Not even the N.D.P. in their wildest dreams of a socialist heaven would dare lay the heavy hand of direct government control so heavily on the communications facilities of this nation.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? He will not object if we quote this generous statement of his?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It just means you are not as bad as the Liberals.


Erik Nielsen: Why are they calling it the Canadian radio commission? I believe the answer is very simple. It has nothing to do with bilingualism, as one of our members said the other day. If bilingualism rests on anything so shallow as the change in name from the Board of Broadcast Governors to the Canadian radio commission, simply because that name sounds the same in both languages, then we are in even more serious trouble than I thought. This change is sought because this government knows, and I believe the Canadian people know, that the most powerful medium of communications in Canada today, indeed in any country today, is television. This government wants tq. avoid any hint or any shadow of a suggestion that it is setting up a device which will in fact allow it to exercise supreme and total control over television broadcasting in this nation. That is exactly what this bill does. This is why the word "television" does not even appear in the title of the bill. It should be called the television control act, in my submission, because that is precisely what it does.


John Napier Turner: What is that in French?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know what it is in French. I readily admit that I do not know how to speak French. I know what is being said about me when I am in the elevator, so things are not said now when I go in and out of the elevator. And now that the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) has raised the matter, I do not believe it is shameful to admit a lack in the other language. I would dearly love to be able to speak ten languages, but I cannot do that. I speak two languages.
The granting of licences, the revoking of licences, the renewal of licences, indeed the very programs which will appear, the scheduling of programs and their content, political broadcasts-all of these are under the direct control of this five man broadcasting junta; that is what it is. If they do not like I Love Lucy, off it goes. More important, if
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting they do not like a program which they consider to be political or partisan, off it goes. Under section 16 of the bill, these powers reside in the executive committee. This committee is given power to regulate and control the whole political character of national broadcasting patterns. The recent national convention of the Conservative party would have been subject to a broadcasting veto by this five man group, not only on the C.B.C. tout on the private system as well, because section 18 clearly states if they deem it of special significance to broadcast The Twilight Zone, then it will be broadcast.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, nothing has presented such a challenge to freedom of speech and freedom of expression in this country as the provision in this bill for a fine of $100,000 for a breach of these regulations. Power of this kind, unusual, abusive and extreme penalties of this kind, are totally inconsistent with the existence of free speech in a free society. I agree that a broadcasting licence is something that belongs to the people, but so are trucking licences, so are newspapers, an air transport licence, and many other things. The newspapers of this country buckled under to the infringement of press freedom embodied in the press legislation passed two years ago. The broadcasting industry will no doubt, with the passage of this bill, buckle under to it. While I am in complete agreement that the licence to exploit a natural resource, and that is what we are talking about, is a privilege and not a right it must be subject to regulation. Once the privilege is granted the exercise of control, in my view, should remain within the purview of the people and not be subject to direct intervention by the government.
It is not the control to which I object, it is where the control is vested. In fact, the control will be in the hands of the minister who, through the five man executive committee, will be able to guide and to influence, to direct and govern broadcasting to his heart's content. How can anyone in the private sector object with the spectre of a $100,000 fine hanging over his head? The chain of authority leads directly to the minister's office. The power is absolute and there is no appeal beyond the minister.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Do not the minister and the government, in view of all their pious pronouncements about the sanctity of the national broadcasting service, feel that the private sector and what

appears on it is equally important to Canadians and for that reason should have equal rights and treatment? Under this bill the private sector does not get that equality.
I am not prepared to accept the thesis that the C.B.C., simply because it is a state controlled network, is in some way more responsible than the private network. This has not been the case. The C.B.C. has been floundering for a lack of leadership and direction. There has been some improvement, though very little, in the last few months; but now even that appears in danger. The C.B.C. has become honeycombed with little fortresses and administrative cells which are completely beyond control.
We had an experience of this, Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary committee last year when we heard the apostatizations surrounding the attempt to exercise internal control over one program, This Hour has Seven Days.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. gentleman answer a question at this point. I wonder whether what he is describing is not an obvious manifestation of bad management?


Erik Nielsen: Bad management? It is a lack of control and direction. I believe the finest example of this is the manner in which the minister has been replying to questions. No information has been given to us. I do not know whether this is because the minister has a lack of knowledge and does not know what is going on in management in the C.B.C., or whether it is typical-as indeed it is-to expect of the treasury benches that they do not care to give this house information. I do not think that the C.B.C. management, the president of which was so eloquently lauded by the parliamentary secretary, is the fundamental factor to be blamed here; it is a lack of direction and control.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He is charming but not always well informed.


Erik Nielsen: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Just as the hon. member- only he is not so charming.


Erik Nielsen: -I am in the group, regardless of the expressions to which the minister has given public expression concerning myself in my own riding, who think she is a very charming lady, and I should like to see her shut of this trouble she is in now; but she is in it, up to her neck.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We do not want her as head of the C.B.C. though.
November 3, 1967


Erik Nielsen: For months, Mr. Speaker, Canadians were treated over the C.B.C. to an unending parade of drug addicts, black power advocates, prostitutes, purveyors of filthy literature, Nazis and pseudo-Nazis. All of the scrapings and leavings of society sooner or later turned up on the C.B.C. No one in the C.B.C. apparently was able to exercise any control over what went on.
According to the Auditor General, even elementary financial controls are lacking in this organization, which is now on its way to gobbling up $100 million and more of the taxpayers' money, providing in many cases very dubious return. In this regard I have already made reference to the treatment by the president of the Glassco commission's recommendations, and his attitude toward them.
This is the organization, Mr. Speaker, that the government in this bill wishes to place in an even more privileged position than it now enjoys, with even less possibility of any control being exercised over the conglomeration of little kingdoms that have grown up within its great corporate structure. It is not more but, in my view, less administrative freedom that the C.B.C. needs.
While viewers of the English network have been treated to the scrapings and dregs of society, while every crack-brained apostle of a hair-brained cause has been given air time at the taxpayers' expense, we have had on the French network a parade of separatists and advocates of the destruction of Canada. Last summer the French network featured half an hour or more of Fidel Castro explaining in detail how revolutions should be mounted and opposition should be put down in order to bring into being the kind of "people's paradise" that exists in Cuba.
Is this the kind of responsibility from which the minister and the government wish through this bill to remove any last vestige of control by parliament? A great deal of good work is being and has been done by the C.B.C. Their news programming has generally been exceptional. The artistic talent that has appeared on the C.B.C. has usually been of high calibre. C.B.C. radio has a well deserved and world wide reputation, as pointed out by previous speakers. But no organization can exist without leadership and direction, and this is what the C.B.C. has been doing for four years. No organization can operate without administrative control, without clear definition of purpose and visible, definite goals. Yet this is what the C.B.C.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting has been doing. No organization can allow within its administrative framework the spreading growth of self-contained and selfgoverning units, pre-empting government facilities and public funds to put forward their own views and their own pet projects. But this is what has been happening in the C.B.C.
These are some of the reasons for my being unable to accept any measure designed to add to the power and privileges of this group at the expense of the private sector. Comparatively speaking, the private sector has been doing a good job for Canada within the limits of a considerably less massive budget. It is time, I think, to take a realistic look at some of these questions and not allow ourselves to be lulled by the pretensions of the few against the interests of the many.
The assumption underlying this bill, Mr. Speaker-and this is what galls me-is that when Hogan's Heroes appears on the C.B.C. it somehow contributes to the national destiny and unity, whereas I Love Lucy does not, because it is on the private network. That stretches credulity a bit too far, even for me. If the provisions in this bill are applied in their present form, broadcasting freedom will disappear.


John Carr Munro: Oh, stop it.


Erik Nielsen: The parliamentary secretary says "Oh, stop". Obviously he has not seen the letter dated November 3. If he had, his speech would have been designed a good deal differently from that we heard this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister says he is not well informed anyway.


Erik Nielsen: That is right. If this bill is passed, the government will have the power to exercise direct control and regimentation, and in my view this should be resisted. This commission should be scrapped and its present functions should remain with the B.B.G. which should be continued, in my view, in its present form. This parliament should not participate in making broadcasting a bureaucrat's paradise, as they have with everything else.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise you if I inform you and other members of the house that with the exception of part of the reference of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to some recent remarks made by the minister, I
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting entirely disagree with everything the hon. member said. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the hon. member for Yukon has as colleagues people like the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fail-weather); otherwise his party would be a pretty dismal group. Using some of the language of the hon. member for Yukon never in my wildest experience as a lawyer have I heard so extravagent and unjustified a distortion of a statute from the mouth of another lawyer as I heard this afternoon. Nothing in the bill before the house justifies one thousandth of the extravagances which the hon. member adopted in making a case for private broadcasting. There is no evidence for his contentions, other than the fulminations, frustrations and ignorance to which he gave vent this afternoon.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is his style.


Mr, Lewis:: I wish to deal with matters relating to this bill and I wish to remind hon. members, and particularly the minister, that however good the principles of this bill may be, their implementation depends entirely on the quality of those who are appointed to the positions this bill creates.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Agreed.


David Lewis: I am speaking of positions on the commission and positions in the corporation. The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) says that she agrees. Well, so far as a minister of the crown can be, she has been in charge of matters relating to broadcasting for about two years, two years during which the state of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been reduced to a painful low. They have been two years during which she made some of the appointments. What has been the record?
The minister says that she agrees. Before this debate ends I hope she will tell this house, not only on her own behalf but on behalf of her cabinet colleagues also, that the sort of action she has indulged in, in the past, will not occur again.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Such as what?


David Lewis: The Vancouver Sun of September 5, 1967, dealing with the Board of Broadcast Governors, says this in an editorial:
The board has large powers over television and radio licences. It can make men's fortunes, or it can deny them fortunes. Under such circumstances,
[Mr. Lewis.)

it ought to be as non-political as possible. But it has not been so, under either Conservative or Liberal governments.
Its personnel has rarely been distinguished. At present it has 15 members, three of whom are fulltime, the remainder part-time. All are appointed by the federal cabinet. Of 10 part-time members named since the present government took office, eight have been Liberals.
The Globe and Mail of August 2, 1967, says the same thing; the same thing was documented in a column in the same newspaper by George Bain. In a television interview on November 1 the minister said that herself. She had this to say, according to the transcript I hold in my hand:
Oh, we've got some really first rate people, people like Coyne in Ottawa.
When I heard that, and also when I read the transcript of the interview, I could not help feeling depressed that a minister would know only one member of a board of 15 members. She could name only one member during the interview.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think my hon. friend should realize that almost all of 14 agencies have boards which report to me.


David Lewis: We were not dealing with 14 agencies; we were dealing with this one board. This is the board with which the minister ought to be intimately acquainted; she ought to know what has happened in broadcasting in the last two years, and particularly in the last year. If she is suggesting that she does not now know the personnel of the board and their qualifications to sit on it, I can think of no greater condemnation of her stewardship in this area of public activity.
During this interview, according to this transcript, she said:
Oh we've got some really first rate people, people like Coyne in Ottawa. You couldn't have anybody better. This is one of the brightest men in Canada on this job. There are some that are at the other end of the pole, and there's no question of it, and I've been as guilty as other ministers I think in putting them on, because I haven't met them or known very much about them.
Can one think of a more cavalier way of dealing with one of the most important institutions in the country. Obviously, the minister did not say-and I am not exaggerating when I put this to you, Mr. Speaker-that those who were chosen were chosen as the result of conversations with party leaders or party hacks in the various regions of the country, instead of as the result of conversations with those elements in our society
November 3, 1967

which could bring to bear some intelligent judgment as to the qualifications of those who were to sit on the board to which they were appointed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member answer a question? What assurance have we that the same procedure will not be followed in the future by other ministers, or by the same minister?


David Lewis: My answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is that precisely the same condition existed when he was a member of a government. Emphasis on political appointments to the B.B.G. was just as prevalent in the previous government as it has been in this government. We shall not rid ourselves of this situation until we rid ourselves of what I call perhaps the most evil, although small, remnant of patronage in our federal set-up, the political appointments to important agencies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But how will the hon. member correct that?


David Lewis: We cannot correct it by legislation, Mr. Speaker, because there is no alternative to the appointments being made by the governor general in council. The position could be corrected soon if this parliament in a unanimous voice were to say to this government and all future governments that it is time to end this cheap and shoddy patronage for positions of power and importance in the country and that appointments to the bench, the B.B.G., the C.B.C. and other similar bodies should be made on the basis of qualifications and quality only. Whether the appointees happen to be Liberals, New Democrats, Conservatives or of other political persuasions, they should be qualified for the job. This is the answer. I say that this is the most important consideration before this parliament, before this government, and this is why I raised it as the first point in my speech.
The new commission will have greater power than the Board of Broadcast Governors set up by the previous government. Its powers will not be as great as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon; nevertheless they will be considerable. It will be able to impose stiffer penalties than the old board could. The hon. member for Yukon did not draw my tears when he told this house that the poor, private stations will not be able to do anything because of the $100,000 penalty that will be hanging over them. If that is the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting only way to keep them from breaking the law, then that is how big the penalty ought to be.


Erik Nielsen: That remark shows the difference in our characters.


David Lewis: There is no reason to criticize this provision. Because the commission will have greater power than the old board had, because the penalties will be stiffer than before, appointing to that commission men and women who are qualified to do the job for which they are appointed, who are free of political encumbrances and parochial and regional prejudices, who are capable of acting as cultured Canadians concerned with this country and its culture, is a matter of the utmost importance.
I proceed to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under the same head. What about appointments to it? What about appointment to the board of governors of the C.B.C.? From the evidence it seems that there has been a lesser curse of political patronage in the appointments to that board than was the case with respect to the other board to which I referred. It is apparent that in the last year or so the C.B.C. has been the victim of having had no appointments at all. For this the minister and the government are responsible.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If this seems strange to the minister I will make the point clear to her. First, everyone in this house, perhaps with the exception of the hon. member for Yukon, regrets that the C.B.C. seems to have fallen upon evil days during the last couple of years. Whose fault is that? I suggest it is the result of the failure of the board-not of the president and vice president only-but of the failure of the board to act decisively in moments of crisis. This would seem a clear indication that the members of the board were incompetent in their job, no matter how nice they are, or how great their academic learning. Again, the minister agrees with this, I think; I do not want to put words into her mouth, but in that same television program, in the course of the same interview, she said this:
Most of the people we have now are academics on the C.B.C. and you know-take a look at them- every one of them is first rate; got good education, good background, good everything. But they just don't seem to manage.
What is membership on the board of the C.B.C. for if it is not to manage the C.B.C.? It is not to recite Catullus to one another, or to
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting discuss Milton, although this is a delightful thing to do, I am sure. It is to manage the C.B.C., and if these people cannot manage it, what right have they to be there?
The low ebb in the affairs of the C.B.C. at the present time is also a result of the failure of the government to make appointments to top positions in the last year or so. The government has had the resignation of Mr. Ouimet in its hands for some considerable time. Another of the senior officers has resigned, and a third has gone somewhere else. Yet no appointments have been made, the consequence being that during a difficult period the corporation has been led by caretaker officers who have necessarily felt a sense of insecurity and transmitted that feeling to the lower echelons, with the result that morale in the organization has been very low.
What I am trying to say is that the government cannot escape responsibility for this situation. Having failed to make these appointments, the minister announces a couple of days ago, on the eve of a new regime being established, that there was "rotten management" in the C.B.C. I have been critical of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, although I believe, as I shall say later, that there has not been an institution which has made a greater contribution to Canada. But what kind of compulsion caused the minister to make that statement at the present time, when a new regime is to come on the scene? What was she trying to accomplish? I do not wish to be too hard on the minister. All of us in politics make gaffes and unless the hon. lady is in a defensive mood I am sure she will be ready to admit that this was one of hers. However, I suggest that this particular gaffe is revealing in the light it throws on the attitude of the government toward broadcasting.
Let me analyse it briefly. The minister said she did not learn about this until a couple of weeks ago. I say to her that as the minister answerable to parliament in the field of broadcasting she had no right to be ignorant until two weeks ago. It was her duty to have some form of liaison with the C.B.C.-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Oh, I have lots of that.


David Lewis: -and it was her duty to speak to the president and to the vice president and find out what the situation was. And it was also her duty to make sure she did know what the quality of management inside the

C.B.C. was like, not to go to the country and say "I knew nothing about it until two weeks ago".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not say I knew nothing about it. Nobody who was ever in this house, nobody who ever spoke on broadcasting, could fail to know about the management problems of the C.B.C. They must have been aware that there was the Glassco commission report, which condemned management. Nothing was done. Then there was the Fowler report which condemned management. Nothing was done. Then there was the white paper and discussion of the whole subject in house committee. It could be no secret to anyone who knew anything about broadcasting that there was a problem of management. But what I learned about in the past few weeks was very much worse than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: The minister is quite right. There was the Glassco commission report, the Fowler committee report, one other report and the inquiry in committee. The important words used by the minister are: "and nothing was done". If the minister means that nothing was done by the president of the C.B.C., that is one thing. But now I am speaking as a member of parliament on legislation before us, and I say it is much more reprehensible that nothing was done by her; and if she tells me she hides behind the fact that she does not interfere with the daily management of the C.B.C.-as I agree she should not-I say to her that if the president did not do what she felt ought to be done, he should have been fired. She has no right to retain in office people she believes are not doing their jobs as management of the C.B.C. This is a body to which we are voting more than $100 million a year-in my opinion even more would be justified-and it is a body which is carrying a tremendous responsibility. Any government which permits an unsatisfactory situation to develop even worse aspects is a government which is failing to carry out its responsibilities. They have not even accepted the resignation given voluntarily by the president.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is head of the
government?


David Lewis: I will allow the hon. gentleman to answer his own rhetorical questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is blaming the minister, but it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who is the boss.
November 3, 1967


David Lewis: I am not blaming the minister alone. I am blaming the government. I wish I did not have to blame the minister. She was given a hot potato, and the fact that she has not been able to hold it with equanimity is not entirely her fault.


An hon. Member:: It is the Prime Minister who will not let her do what she wants to do.


David Lewis: I say that if the minister and the government responsible let this thing develop and did not know the details of this thing, which was worse than the hon. lady had ever heard until two weeks ago, this is proof of a breakdown in liaison, a breakdown of contact, a breakdown of responsibility on the part of the minister and the government for broadcasting in general, and the C.B.C. in particular. There is simply no sense in discussing and passing a bill if this kind of attitude is to prevail in the future as it has in the past.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I say to the minister in all kindness that she should either make her charges of rotten management stick, or drop them-charges which, Mr. Speaker, she has just made worse by what she said a few minutes ago. She not only says now that there is rotten management in the C.B.C., the kind of undesirable or inadequate management about which some of us have heard over the last year or two, but she claims that within the last couple of weeks she heard things much worse than she ever heard before.
That makes me wonder what she is talking about, and makes every person throughout C.B.C. management, from the president down to the supervisor, wonder what she is talking about. It makes every member of management from the president down to the supervisor in British Columbia or Newfoundland wonder what she is talking about. No responsible person has a right to throw a cloud of suspicion, of incrimination and insult over an entire body of men and women, hundreds of whom have done a good job-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is preposterous.


David Lewis: It isn't.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How does the hon. member suggest that some supervisor in Newfoundland has anything to do with the way the corporation is run?


David Lewis: I am not trying to suggest this. The minister's jumping up is merely the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting result of her sense of guilt. I have seen management charts in the corporation when I acted as counsel for unions dealing with the C.B.C., in the years when I was not a member of parliament. I have seen such corporation charts and they go all the way down, not to the supervisor in every case, but all the way down from the president to those who have responsibility and power over the regular staff.
I am not exaggerating. If the minister does not want to go down the chart as far as the supervisor, there are still hundreds of people against whom her remarks may be thought to be addressed. Every time this kind of general accusation is made, everyone is under a cloud. Either the minister ought not to have made her charge-and in my respectful submission she should not have- circumstances permit, so as to clear those not guilty of that particular charge.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is the hon. member actually saying he believes I should have pretended there was nothing wrong with the management of the C.B.C.?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows very well I am not suggesting that. She could have said, in the mellifluous tones she occasionally uses, that of course she has known there has been inadequate management in the C.B.C. and that there has been a great deal of criticism of some aspects of management, and no one would have questioned her. But what she has now said is that within the last two weeks she became acquainted with facts which led her to declare that there was rotten management in the C.B.C. Rotten is a particular kind of word; and today she added that what she learned was much worse than she ever learned before. Those words have a certain implication. I am sorry to have to press this on her, but I think that implication throws a cloud on a lot of people, and it is her duty to be more specific so that the cloud is lifted from those over whom it hangs unjustifiably.
Because of certain aspects of the C.B.C. that latterly have not been thoroughly desirable, there has been a tendency, particularly on the part of hon. members in this house to be very critical of it. In order to save time I merely wish to say that I was in thorough agreement with most of the statements made by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro).
November 3, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I have watched the C.B.C. with very close interest since it was established, not merely since I entered parliament but throughout all the years of its existence, and indeed before the particular name C.B.C. came into existence, when the Canadian radio commission, a name being revived in this bill, preceded the C.B.C. I do not believe I am using extravagant language when I state my belief, and the belief of many Canadians, that no institution in this country has done more to develop Canadian talent, to give an opportunity for Canadian talent to make a living, to give an opportunity for expression of opinions, for the development of the entertainment industry, for the whole gamut of human interest to be heard and seen by all the people of Canada, than the C.B.C.
Some private stations do a decent job occasionally, but anyone who knows musicians, actors, writers, press gallery members, all the people who have an opportunity to appear on radio and television to express their views, show their talents, or participate in some exciting cultural experience, also knows that without the C.B.C. Canada would be immeasurably poorer than it is now, in the cultural and spiritual sense of that word.
The hon. member for Yukon always reminds me of the kind of person who says: I have an open mind, but don't think you will ever change it. That is the kind of open mind he has, but I would ask even him to be just a little contemporary. I do not expect him to be 100 per cent in the twentieth century; but even 10 per cent in the twentieth century would help. I ask him to note that after years of only private and commercial television and radio in the United States-what do we find in 1967? We find in 1967 that the President of the United States recommended to congress the establishment of a public television corporation. We find in the United States that an act to that effect was enacted a little while ago, after only five or six week's study by a senate committee.
We find President Johnson, when recommending the legislation to congress, saying that what he wanted was a corporation for public television authorized to provide support to non-commercial television and radio. We find that the ex-chairman of the federal communications commission, Mr. Henry, said when that law was passed-and I commend these words to the hon. member for Yukon,

and even to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
What makes this corporation most exciting is the possibility of a live network unfettered by commercial considerations.
If the great free enterprise country of the United States of America can recognize the value of a public corporation that is not commercially controlled, I should think anyone in this house, who is in 1967 instead of 1767, ought to recognize the value of the C.B.C. What I am worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that recent events have led many of us to believe that there ought to be some tight control over programming in television in general, and in C.B.C. television in particular. I suggest that we ought not permit ourselves to be carried away.
The late Mr. Brockington, who was chairman of the Canadian radio commission, when he appeared before the select committee on radio broadcasting on March 24, 1938, said in his customary fluent and moving English:
We believe that censorship is undesirable and perhaps impossible beyond the limits of decency and the minor and necessary prohibitions which we have fixed in our regulations. We have always, and shall continue always, to take care in the selection of network speakers to see that they are competent to discuss public problems within recognized amenities. We deprecate any tendency on the part of the owners of private stations to allow their own political or social opinions to affect broadcasts from the station which they control.
Censorship itself depends on the opinion of an individual possibly no better qualified to express an opinion than the person he censors.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is no doubt about the truth of that.
We believe radio speech should be allowed to be forthright, provocative and stimulating. In controversial matters we have tried, and shall try, to allow for the free expression of varied and opposite opinion. Perhaps on occasions, enough varieties of opinions have not been expressed. We believe that national problems and international problems should be discussed by Canadian citizens without restriction or fear. It may be that some opinions largely held, have remained unvocal. This situation will be remedied.
Then Mr. Brockington went on to say:
We are opposed to, and shall resist, any attempt to regiment opinion and to throttle freedom of utterance. We have not the slightest reason to believe that the government is desirous of such regimentation. Rather we have every reason to believe that the contrary is true. We are prepared, of course, to recognize that in times of war, or perhaps during the imminence of national peril from external sources, some government control might be necessary. Until that occasion arises, the corporation having selected competent commentators and speakers does not propose to interfere with the right of free expression.
November 3, 1967

What was true in 1938 is true today. I was a little concerned by some of the statements made by the minister on the same television interview which I heard, and the transcript of which I have studied. I am referring particularly to the statements about separatists.
I am opposed to the separatists in this country. Indeed, in order to make the point clear and because I cannot escape the temptation to say "I told you so", I should like to point out that I criticized Rene Levesque more than a year ago for the extremist statements he then made. I indicated in my criticism that the statements he made suggested to me that he was travelling the separatist road. This appeared in the public press, particularly in Montreal, in both French and English. Mr. Levesque replied that he never had heard a more idiotic statement. The idiocy is made clear by the way Mr. Levesque has gone.
I believe, however, that it would be a travesty of freedom of speech if Mr. Levesque did not receive an opportunity to express his views to the Canadian people. Only a sense of insecurity and a lack of confidence in the people of Canada would prompt one to suggest that the expression of that opinion would do Canadian unity harm.
I have greater confidence than that. But, whether it does one thing or another, I emphasize that we ought not interfere with the expression of opinion and indeed with the selection of entertainment or with the work of people of talent either in the corporation or in the private network agencies.
I should like to come back to where I started. The solution is to appoint good people and let them do the job, to keep a close liaison with the new commission and the C.B.C., to watch carefully what the developing situation is, and to become aware of it in time if anything goes wrong. If those who have been appointed do not do the job, then they must be replaced and we must have the courage to do this quickly without dragging it out for two or three years until the situation becomes almost irremedial. I just pity the man or woman who will have to take over the duties either with the corporation or with the new commission after what we have done.
In the remaining few minutes which I believe are left to me I should like briefly to make two or three points. First, I would hope that the minister would give consideration to the suggestion that the president of the new commission and the president of the C.B.C.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting each should appear annually before a parliamentary committee on broadcasting to make a report, just as had been done in the early days of our broadcasting situation in Canada. I am entirely in favour of the five year budgeting for the C.B.C. That, however, need not prevent the president of the C.B.C. appearing before a parliamentary committee every year in order to give an account of his stewardship and to give members of parliament an opportunity to question him as to whether the funds we have voted have been expended efficiently. This would also give us an opportunity to discuss with the president of the C.B.C. particular aspects of his programming and the philosophies of the C.B.C. and to discuss with the president of the new commission the policies of the commission in its day to day operations.
I think it is very important that we do this because when we vote a large sum of money annually or over a period of five years in particular to the C.B.C. and when we vote money to the new commission to carry out a certain function, it seems to me that as a parliament we have a duty to make certain as far as possible that the job which parliament wanted done is in fact being done and that the money which parliament has voted is in fact being expended judiciously and carefully. One way in which to do this is to revert to what I am sure was the situation in the late 1930's; that is, an annual appearance of the head of the corporation and the head of the commission before a parliamentary committee.
The final point I should like to make relates to the use of Canadian talent. Many things have been said about this already, but I suggest that every time one looks at some statistics on this point he cannot help but be extremely depressed. Mr. Fowler in his report makes an analysis of the expenditures directly on talent, both in the private and public sectors. I should like to quote just a sentence or two:
The amounts shown-
This is in reference to the private sector.
-in the analysis for artists' and other talent fees, and especially the trend of these amounts, indicate an alarming situation.
The full details are given, and then he points out that between 1961 and 1963 there was, in respect of private radio stations, an expenditure of over twice as much on advertising, promotion and travel as there was on Canadian talent. He then adds the words, "These figures are a disgrace."

November 3, 1967
Canada Elections Act
Then, when he comes to the C.B.C. it is the same thing, even though he says the C.B.C. has a much greater expenditure on Canadian talent:
Apparently financial stringency produces the same result in the C.B.C. as with private broadcasters; the easiest place to cut is in the employment ol creative talent. This is a question of priorities. We do not suggest that talent budgets be limitless; however we do suggest that this should be one of the last parts of the budget to be cut. It seems that this policy has not been followed by the C.B.C. during the last five years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge parliament, the minister and anyone else who may be concerned with broadcasting to consider my suggestion that there is no real excuse for the existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in particular, unless we make it possible for the corporation and the leaders of the corporation to use funds to advance Canadian talent, and there is no use setting up the commission unless it is given power to insist that there be a large proportion of Canadian talent in Canadian television broadcasting.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being five o'clock, this house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Age of Voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reduce the voting age in federal elections from age 21 as at present to age 18. The present situation in Canada is rather mixed and there seems to be no concensus in various provinces as to what should be the proper age for voting. In the four provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba the voting age is 21. In the three provinces of Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia the voting age is 19, and in the three provinces of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, the voting age is 18.
I might point out that even though the official age for voting in federal elections is 21, there is an exception. Those who are in the armed forces may vote at age 18. There

seems to be no concensus at all in Canada about this voting age.
I suppose in discussing this issue one first has to make clear just what voting means, and its significance. Perhaps, primarily the granting of the vote is an admission into full citizenship. In a democratic society it requires the responsibility of voting or not voting, the responsibility of participating in elections or not participating. There is an active and passive responsibility, and it is up to the person concerned to participate as he sees fit.
Basically in a representative democratic society voters do not vote on each particular issue. Federal elections involve a variety of issues and the voters tend to elect a person either by means of political designation or, in particular rural areas, they may vote for an individual and trust in his judgment. In any case under a representative democratic system it seems to me that the judgment of the elector is called into being as he makes a decision regarding the representative he wishes to elect to office.
Why is the present age in federal elections 21? There does not seem to be any particular reason. Age 21 was the legal age, when one came of age, and it was probably easy for the legislatures at the time to designate this age as the age when one came into full citizenship. Twenty one was also the age when an individual had usually completed his education, was out working, probably married and presumably carrying his share of the burden in the community. In short, at age 21 a person was considered to be an adult member of the community, as compared to somebody such as an adolescent who was dependant upon the community. Like all these types of measures it was created perhaps out the conventional wisdom of its time, but times have changed and no longer is it correct.
For example, under the type of education which we have imposed upon our younger people today, they are not finished at age 21. I was age 26 when I was finally released from university. In point of fact, I am still paying fees to the University of Toronto to remain eligible for my degree. I am still a graduate student in the eyes of the University. Age 21 is no longer the age when one has completed the apprenticeship that he must complete before coming to full citizenship. It seems that we have to take a look at the new conditions under which we are living and
November 3, 1967

devise proper voting regulations so that all those who should have the right to vote will be given that privilege.
The first question that comes to mind when one talks about lowering the voting age is the question of responsibility. Let me quote briefly from the report of the Ontario legislature's select committee on youth. At page 294 we find the following:
Young people at age 18 to 20 today are generally more educated and more knowledgeable than any previous generation at the same age. One of the great weaknesses noted by the committee in its many contacts with young people was the inability of adults to give youngsters responsibility commensurate with their knowledge and capability. Probably this has stemmed from the unfortunate image that has been created by those few irresponsible. often immature teenagers who all too frequently come to public attention. Certainly they do not typify nor represent the large numbers of stable and good living young persons who make up our great body of youth.
Let me point out, that the series of articles which have been published in so-called respectable papers in Canada dealing with birth control and what not as applied to the Yorkville situation have been most unjust. The articles which appeared in the Globe and Mail give examples of the type of undesirable situation that comes to the public eye. If it is not undesirable, it certainly is sensationalism brought to public attention in an irresponsible manner. In any event this does a great injustice to the majority of young people, particularly because of the way in which these things are presented. This is only a very small group.
The question of voting comes down to a question of responsibility. One difficulty facing young people today is that they have few opportunities for training in responsibility. It was never my fate, but my father assures me that he had to haul the coal and water, and do chores around the house every day. In those days we did not have electric heating, water brought to our door and that sort of thing. It is very difficult to give children responsibility around apartments and in the type of housing we have today. There is nothing for them to do, and if the parents are going to instil a sense of responsibility in their children they have to wrack their brains to find responsible tasks for them.
The educational system in which we rear our youth today almost of necessity results in making them parasites living off society. We deny them any possibility of participation in community affairs by virtually putting them in a system which locks them out of the
Canada Elections Act
mainstream of Canadian society. These children go to school, and go to school, and go to school, to the point where the student in this society feels that he will spend his life doing nothing but going to school. They are given little opportunity to produce or to contribute to the community.
It is no wonder then that we find communities such as Yorkville, made up of youngsters who are alienated from today's society. They feel there is no role for them to play in the greater part of Canadian society. This is not strange in our society because we virtually push them out and cut them off. We almost completely forget that some of these youngsters are sensitive and creative and cannot hack it under the present circumstances. These people will be forced into this alienated existence for several years, or perhaps for their lives. This problem has always existed, but today in our society we seem to encourage it, perhaps not willingly but in a backhand way. We do not pay enough attention to the problem.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In a democratic system I think that responsibility is the key to its survival. We can bring youth into the political system, into the mainstream of Canadian society, provided we are willing to give them a role to play. The easiest way to do that is to bring them into perhaps the most important function in a free society, that is the political function, and give them a role in the political process. They would then become participants in this process. I believe young people want to participate in this area, they want the chance to accept responsibility, and we can help them to become more involved in society by lowering the voting age from the present 21 to 18.
If we did this it would provide leadership for those provinces which have not taken any steps to lower the voting age. It should be pointed out, though, that to date the federal government has not been a leader but a follower; it has done nothing as yet in this regard. I hope this bill, and similar bills and resolutions appearing on the order paper will be sent to the standing committee on privileges and elections in order that the committee may have a full discussion of the implications of these measures.
I should point out that the select committee of the Ontario government recommended that the voting age be reduced to either 18 or 19. There was some debate whether 18 or 19 was the proper age. The important thing is that

November 3, 1967
Canada Elections Act
the principle of a reduction in the voting age was accepted by all parties in the Ontario legislature.
One of the advantages of modern youth is that they are much better educated, even at the age of 18, than were their forebears at 21. The old standards applied when making the legal age 21 are, I think no longer valid. For example, in Ontario one is not supposed to drink alcoholic beverages until he is 21, a regulation more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Why should one want to drink booze when he can easily get L.S.D., "pot" or any of the variety of drugs that are apparently readily available in our larger cities and universities?
The sophistication of modern youth has increased. It seems to me that youth should be given responsibilities commensurate with their knowledge and abilities. They are more knowledgeable today than were their forebears some years ago. Television, radio and the other communications media bring them more information about national and international events than their forebears ever had. What is more important, they are in a better position to digest and understand this information than their parents, who were raised under another type of educational system and in a different kind of world.
This brings me to another point, Mr. Speaker. The time honoured traditions, the qualifications that one had to have to hold responsible positions, that one had to be experienced, one had to be well known in his profession in order to advance, have gone by the board. It is no longer necessary to hang around for years in a profession, even in the House of Commons, before one gains eminence in that profession. I think it is necessary that we no longer place much value on just hanging around, but should recognize sheer ability and the will to survive. I believe that what we are looking for is quality and ability, not just being of a certain age, being in the right place and available at the right time. It seems to me that in all the appointments we make we must seek quality.
This brings me to another point, Mr. Speaker. Even granting, which I do not, that there is some value in a person hanging around and serving a long apprenticeship before reaching the top, that person's training and hanging around do not really help because of the type of environment and the fast moving world in which we live. This is a world of constant change. Because of this and the fact that things change so quickly,

this type of experience is not as valuable as it once was.
We see that progressive companies and organizations are today putting youthful people in more important jobs. These companies are progressing because of it. It seems to me that in this country we are cutting off a generation and are going from the 60's to the 40's. Those in the late 40's and early 50's are being passed over. You have to do this because things have changed so much and our way of thinking and doing things is different.
If we are to survive it is necessary that we follow this practice in politics and bring our young people into political existence as full fledged participants. Another matter I wish to refer to is parliament itself and the type of legislation with which we are dealing. Ever since I became actively involved in politics in 1963 I have been impressed by one fact of parliament: we are dealing with the past, we are plugging the dike when the flood has passed; we are dealing with things that are no longer current. But we have to deal with them because we did not have the foresight or imagination to deal with them when the problem was upon us. We did not have the foresight or imagination to see that this is the way we were going and therefore we should take certain action. In other words, what we have been busily doing is trying to plug the dike after the flood has gone.
I think that if we were to bring youth into the political spectrum it would result in a different attitude. Members of all political parties, it seems to me, have suffered from this problem. All political parties would be strengthened if youthful people came into this sphere, because they would be participating more enthusiastically and providing their knowledge of what is going on in the world today.
Young people are much more able to grasp the environment around them than we are. Perhaps I should change that, Mr. Speaker. I should like to dissociate myself from other hon. members because I, and I think one other member, am still under 30 years of age. I am therefore a friend of the young people because hon. members over 30 are classified as enemies by the young. The slogan of the young people is: Don't trust anybody over 30.
To buttress this argument I should like to quote the words of the long time premier of Alberta, Mr, Manning, and read from page 27 of his very interesting book entitled "Political Realignment":
November 3, 1967

Canada Elections Act
The younger generation of Canadians is capable of political thought and action at a level of maturity much higher than that characterizing party politics in this country at the present time. Youth today is quick to detect, and is strongly repulsed by, sham and superficiality. Young people who are looking for purpose, conviction, inspiration, and leadership in matters of private and national concern will not, nor should be expected to, be satisfied by gimmicks and slogans, cliches and promises, and slick but shallow promotional campaigns. There will be little room in the Canada of tomorrow for elections without issues, politicians with philosophical standards, parties without relevant policies, or citizenship without definition and purpose.
Underneath the rhetoric that passage is really saying that young people, the people for whom we are presumably governing this country, can recognize what the truth is behind a great deal of what goes on in political debate and politics in this country. We want to bring them into this field. We want to infuse others with their knowledge and vitality. We want to inject his knowledge and vitality into our political system. I think the only way we can do that and eliminate a great deal of the alienation of our youth is by extending to them the franchise and asking them to accept the responsibilities of citizenship.
The last point with which I shall deal, and very quickly, Mr. Speaker, is that youth is to some extent an interest group. I am informed that 50 per cent of the Canadian population are under 25. A great deal of the money collected at the provincial and federal levels is spent in solving the problems of youth -departments of education, for example, are almost wholly youth oriented-to say nothing of the family allowances paid by the federal government.
Since we are spending so much money on our youth, and all this money is not necessarily being well spent, I think youth have a right to be consulted by boards of governors of universit'es and politicians and given a role to play even though they are an interest group. The whole political spectrum is made up of interest groups. It seems to me that in the last two years we have spent a great deal of time dealing with the special problems of an interest group, our senior citizens. We have had votes of confidence, bills presented and a whole number of things. There is no reason why equal representation cannot be given to another interest group, the up-and-coming ones, the ones who have a future. It seems to me that as an interest group they have the right to have their voice heard.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to send this bill to the standing committee on privileges and elections so that a committee of the house may look into all its implications, e (5:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) for the excellent case he has made for the bill now before us. I am glad to see that the government house leader is with us just now, and I am particularly pleased to see him going over to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Perhaps this strengthens our hand. I should like to support the plea that this bill and the other two like it, as well as the three resolutions on this subject which are now on the order paper, be sent to the committee on privileges and elections.
Perhaps the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will not mind if I point out that he and two other members of this house, one a member of the Progressive Conservative party and one a member of the New Democratic party, made a pact at the beginning of this session. I hope that their efforts succeed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Disclose their names.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With pleasure, and indeed, I congratulate them. They are the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who is-well, let us call him a Liberal although he uses another designation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He cannot get elected as a Liberal. He has to be a Liberal-Labour in
order to get elected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe he is a member of the Liberal caucus. Then, there is the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), who is a Progressive Conservative and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), who is a New Democrat. They all have before the house precisely the same bill. We have before us today Bill No. C-12. The bill in the name of the hon. member for Prince is Bill No. C-14, and the bill in the name of the hon. member for Springfield is Bill No. C-26. In addition to these three identical bills, the same three members have three identical resolutions on the order paper under the heading, "Private Members Notices of Motions".


Mr. Fane:: November 3, 1967
Canada Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are No. 15, No. 24 and No. 28. My young friend from Vegreville calls out "collusion", but I prefer to call it co-operation. It just so happens that these three members who have presented these three bills are younger chronologically than some of the rest of us in this house, but we who may be a little older chronologically like to feel we are just as young as they are in spirit.
I do not want to take up too much of the time, Mr. Speaker, for that could defeat the bill, which is so easily done in this private members hour. I do want to support the argument the hon. member has made and I earnestly appeal to the government house leader, either at six o'clock today or the earliest opportunity, to refer the subject matter of these three bills and the three resolutions to which I have referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
May I point out to the government house leader that it is the usual practice for us to review the Canada Elections Act after each election. This review generally results in amendments being made to that act in the light of the experience at the most recent election. I believe there has been no such amendment of the Canada Elections Act since the election of 1962. I agree that the period from 1962 to 1963 was rather short, and so was the period from 1963 to 1965.
Unless we act soon, we are going to find ourselves going into another election without having had this customary and desirable review of the Canada Elections Act. I believe this question of the age of voters is one subject that ought to be referred to that committee so that it can be dealt with before the next election. I believe too that the report of the committee on election expenses should be referred to that committee. I think the question of the names of the political parties being put on the ballot and other matters of that sort should be dealt with. These are very important matters. It is not good enough to tell us an election is not coming next month or so, because under this government time has a way of slipping by without things getting done. These issues related to the Canada Elections Act are important, and the one that is before us today is extremely important. I should like to indicate my support for the principle of the three bills and the three resolutions to which I have referred, and I urge that their subject matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections at the earliest possible moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are surprised that I should be participating in this debate. According to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I surely must belong to a generation that is so far removed from the 18-year-olds there is no contact or discussion whatever. I happen to be a person who voted when I was just 18 years of age, so I have had experience in this matter. Yet, even in that period, which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would consider to be a period of rather "Middle Age" darkness, I understood what I was doing, and so did all the other people who were with me of similar age. This was in the election of 1917, over in France. Since I was in the army, I had the privilege of voting when I was under 21 years of age. I have had this experience. We were competent at that time and understood what was going on in the world. We did not know anything about television or ministers who were in charge of television. All that was beyond our ken. We knew nothing about sputniks. We did not have radios. However, we knew something about life, and we understood something of human nature. We knew there was a parliament in Canada and we knew people were elected to that parliament.
We were just as competent to cast a vote then, as long ago as that, as these modern era types who are supposed to be so much better educated than the people of the long distant past. I spent 17 years in the field of education attempting to bring along the younger generation. Most of the people who came under my jurisdiction have done rather well in life. However, I must say when I see them now I say to them, "You are all middle aged and to me you look just like all the rest of the middle aged people in Canada; I wonder why I spent so much time trying to bring you along when you were in high school?" I do not see any difference in them now.
I do not raise any objection to this bill or the other bills that are similar. I hope the subject matter is referred to the committee. The time is going to come when the age limit will be lowered. Perhaps, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) pointed out to me a little while ago, it should be done in conjunction with setting the age of legal liability of people. There is a move on foot now in various jurisdictions to consider whether or not age 21 should not come down to 18 from the standpoint of legal status. The hon. member thinks these things go together. When
November 3, 1967

that is done, then this age of 18 may be satisfactory.
Perhaps the hon. member approves of the change at the moment, I do not know. I am not so seriously concerned about that. I think we tend to get a little excited about when we should vote. Unless I misread some of the articles in the newspapers, the young people who had the opportunity to vote in the Ontario provincial election, in the opinion of some people, did not take full advantage of that opportunity. Whether there is a great demand amongst young people for the vote, I do not know. It is up to them.


John Mercer Reid: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Mercer Reid: Did the hon. member read the correspondence in the columns of the Globe and Mail from the various presidents of the students unions outlining just what had gone on and the statistics that were used incorrectly?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: November 3, 1967
Canada Elections Act
Even if the voting age were reduced to 18, what position would the young people be in if an election were called? Let us suppose there is an election in 1968-and I think there should be so that we can get a change in government. Let us assume that elections will now, occur every four years. There is a sort of changed idea with regard to politics these days, so let us suppose that there will be four-year gaps, as there used to be. A youngster who is 14 years of age in 1968 will have the chance to vote in 1972. But the poor lad who is 15 years of age next year will not vote until he is 19. The chap who is 16 years of age next year will not vote till he is 20, and the person who is 17 years of age in 1968 and who does not get a chance to vote next year will have to wait until he is 21 to vote in 1972. So why do we get so worried about this dropping of the voting age?
Then, Mr. Speaker, how many elections can people vote in? Starting at age 21, if you cast your vote then and live until you are 71 there are 12 opportunities to vote in general elections if they come every for four years.
That is about how the position stands. You do not get as many opportunities to vote as you would like, and some people unfortunately do not take full advantage of those opportunities when they do come. We all know how ti-ying and frustrating it is to a politician when, after all the effort put into a campaign, the election results are turned in, you read of your success or failure the next day, and then find to your astonishment that 20 per cent of the voters did not even bother to go to the polls. These are the people whom you visited and shook hands with, knocked on their doors and said "It is so nice to meet you" and "Is there anything I can do for you?" Some politicians say all these things. Then you find these people just sit at home and look at television to see what sort of program the minister in charge of television has put on at that particular moment.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear from the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I am sure I am in their class as well. I will pass over the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) when I say that we may be old in age, old in bones and old in body, but my goodness, after hearing us today everyone ought to realize we are mighty young in heart.
In rising to speak I want first to associate myself with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who has brought forward this

bill, for which I commend him. I feel it is certainly time that the voting age were lowered from 21 years to 18 years and the Canada Elections Act amended accordingly.
0	(5:40 p.m.)
In the recent elections in New Brunswick the people in the province voted two to one against 18-year-olds having the right to vote.
1	feel sure that every member of this house, be he old or young, feels that these voters would not have voted as they did had they known the facts concerning this group of young people. There is litle doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the decision of the voters in New Brunswick was affected by the antics of a few long-haired galoots who, by the way, are receiving publicity by means of television, radio and press, far beyond their importance.
As one who has had the privilege of spending a good portion of his life with young people, I have always had a high regard for their ability and over-all balance. Only because of news media and other publicity have we heard so much about irresponsible youth; they are in a minority, just as irresponsible adults are in a minority. Heaven only knows we have plenty of irresponsible adults around these days. There always have been and there always will be the DePoe's, the hippies, and others like them in the world.
Not long ago I had the privilege of appearing before a large group of students at the Annandale High School at Tillsonburg. I spoke for only five minutes and, for the other 55 minutes, to the best of my ability answered questions put to me by these young people. They asked intelligent, practical and sound questions. One could not help being impressed by the thinking behind these questions. On returning home I said to Mrs. Roxburgh, "There is one thing I know for sure, that if the students at the Tillsonburg high school are representative of students in our schools across Canada-and I see no reason why they should not be-we don't need to worry about the future of Canada."
As recently as yesterday my colleague for the constituency of Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and I visited the Port Dover composite school in my riding, where approximately 600 students attended the gathering. We also visited the Simcoe composite school, where over 1,100 students attended. The main topic of interest for the students, of course, was Quebec. The interest was so keen that we were kept by the students well beyond the time limit for
November 3, 19S7

our discussion. Here again, as during my visit to the Annandale High School, the questions were intelligent and thought provoking. The hon. member for Dollard was as impressed as I was. There was no question about the intelligence of the young people we faced. I think we should give them the responsibility they are equipped to assume and eager to have.
We must realize that the young of today are better educated than we were at their age and that in experience they are better prepared for life than we were. I could cite many examples. Mr. M. Moir, a school teacher in my constituency, had this to say about the matter:
A person may graduate from grade XIII at the age of seventeen. At this time he has more education than the majority of Canadians. Usually, this person will go on to university, but not always. Many young people-girls, especially-go on to teachers college and begin a profession at the age of eighteen. Should they not have a vote?
Take my case, for example. I graduated from high school just after I turned eighteen. I went on to teachers college and earned $3,200 while I was 19. I was entrusted with the education of 30 pupils directly, and another 200 indirectly. If I was responsible enough to be entrusted with the moulding of the minds of these children, tomorrow's adults; if I was responsible enough to be able to contribute to their formal education, was I not responsible enough to be able to make a sound choice as to whom I wanted to represent me as my member of parliament?
Obviously, when he became a teacher he must have been in his nineteenth or twentieth year. He goes on to say:
When I turned twenty-one, I had taught school for two years. I had, during the second year of my teaching career, acted as principal of my school on a couple of occasions. I had to make some decisions, during these few occasions when I was acting principal, which affected over 200 pupils and six other teachers. If I was responsible enough for this job, was I not responsible enough to vote in a federal election?
There are many more people who have been, or are, in similar positions. Are they not responsible enough to be trusted by our government? Even though they are not twenty-one, are they not adults? Do they not contribute just as much, if not more, than the next person toward our society? Do they not deserve a vote in a federal election? Are they not better qualified to make a sound decision than some alcoholic or marijuana addict who doesn't even know, or care, who is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, yet has a vote because he is a citizen and is over twenty-one? Are they not Canadian citizens with just as much right to voice an opinion as the next fellow? I think they are.
Canada Elections Act
There is little doubt in my mind that youth can play a big part in the present and in future in the political life of Canada. With the enthusiasm of young people and their new ideas, we shall see created a greater general interest. More important, however, is the broadminded approach that our young will bring to the political arena. There will not be that biased, political "like father, like son" outlook that was evident in the political scene of the past and which, to a lesser extent, is evident in the present.
Let us turn to the armed forces. Since September 9, 1950, the regular forces have, in effect, been on active service. Subject to qualifications such as citizenship, every member of the armed forces regardless of his age, may vote. Does it not seem unjust that because one is a member of the armed forces he can vote regardless of age, when a similar privilege is not extended to other Canadians.
We support the law permitting those of the armed forces to vote. Not everyone, however, is in the armed forces. Is it fair to deny a youth of 18 the privilege of voting because his eyesight is not quite as good as the other fellow's, because his heart is weak, or because through no fault of his he cannot join the armed forces? Is it fair to discriminate against him because he can serve his country better in an occupation outside the armed forces? Is this just? I think not.
Consider the 18-year olds in the armed forces who are responsible for expensive equipment, for aeroplanes costing millions of dollars, and for other young lives in their care. Except for the order in council of September 9, 1950, which placed the armed forces on an active service footing, the responsible young Canadians of whom I have spoken would not be allowed to vote.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has already drawn our attention to the ridiculous situation provincially where the voting age is 18 in some provinces, 19 in others and 21 in the rest. The federal voting age is currently 21 years. Surely the young people of one province are no better and no worse than those in another province. After all, they are all Canadians, are they not? Some individuals term the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years a radical reform. But is it really such a drastic transition? Let us look into the matter more closely.

November 3, 196T
Canada Elections Act
What does lowering the voting age to 18 years mean to an 18-year-old? It gives him three extra years in which he might conceivably exercise the franchise. Since usually federal elections occur once every four years-and I hope this will continue to be the case-his chances of voting once more in his lifetime are from 60 to 75 per cent. It should further be considered that, of the newly enfranchised voters, the 19 and 20 year olds would have had a 60 and 80 per cent chance of voting in the next election, even without the lowered age. Is this change so drastic?
What of the present injustice? Take the case of a young man who is 20 years old at the time of an election. He will not vote until 24 years of age, perhaps 25. Fate has deprived this individual of the exercise of the franchise as effectively as would a 24 year limit. If the voting age were 18, such a person would vote at 22 at the latest. His greatest opportunity of voting would be at 20 and 21, the odds being 60 and 80 per cent, respectively. Would this not be a more effective way of administering present policy?
My final few words have to do with a matter which does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I believe it to be so important however that I would like to talk about it now. It has to do with the program of political education within our schools. Some attempt should be made by the departments of education within our provinces to ensure that at least a survey of basic political theories be offered to high school students, such as a careful study of the major types of governmental systems, outlining the advantages and defects inherent in each; a thorough analysis of the parliamentary method of democracy, and more attention to the historical aspects of Canadian politics. Model parliaments and model United Nations groups should be permitted and encouraged in our high schools.
There can be no doubt that our high schools have not encouraged as they should studies in politics, political science, and in government. Many more people are going into science. We are moving right up to the moon. But what is the advantage in being a science graduate if one knows nothing at all about parliamentary methods? Such a person, when it comes to voting, is in no better position than the fellow who has no education, if he keeps within his own sphere and

never moves out of it. We need this base of education within our high schools.
These are just a few ideas on the subject of education, together with a few other thoughts. I believe that if they were put into force they would go a long way toward preparing our young people for the responsibilities of citizenship. As others have done, may I urge that this bill be sent to committee for study and further consideration?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late. I believe that at this moment we are talking about extending voting privileges to a particular group of Canadians, the group between the ages of 18 and 21. I concur with the proposal as set out in the bill put forward by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River. Upon examining our order paper, I find that within the next day or two there will be an opportunity once again to discuss this subject; it seems to me that if we are to talk about extending voting privileges we ought to look closely at the Canada Elections Act and at the situation of those people who are at present disfranchised because of certain peculiarities in the law as it stands.
I hope to have an opportunity later on to speak on this subject and I hope that during the next few days the government, through the leader of the house, will consider referring to a committee the subject matter of the bill before us, together with that of similar bills, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to express their views in connection with ensuring that every Canadian who is entitled to vote shall have the opportunity to do so.
Too often today when a federal general election is called there are people who are disfranchised because of circumstances over which they have no control. I believe the interests of this group of people are as important as are the interests of the group between 18 and 21 years of age. I, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), am one of those who had the opportunity of voting in a federal election at the age of 18. I did so when I was in the services in 1945.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired.
November 3. 1967


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the leader of the house if he would consider asking the house to refer the subject matter of these bills to the committee on privileges and elections.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider that.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to advise the house that we shall continue with the second reading of the broadcasting bill on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1967


[Stage Direction]
As a result of a general demand among lobster fishermen a program of limitation of the number of lobster traps per boat will be introduced in all of the lobster fishing districts in the maritime provinces commencing with the 1968 lobster fishing seasons Fisheries Minister H. J. Robichaud announced today. The numbers of traps will be reduced further in most districts in 1969.
A limit of 375 traps is to be applied in Districts Nos. 1, 6B, 7A, and 7C, and in that portion of District No. 4 between Burns Point and Baccaro Point off the southern coast of Nova Scotia. In these districts the limit is to be reduced to 300 traps at the commencement of the 1969 lobster fishing seasons. This year there was a 500 trap limit set in the northern portion of District 7B.
In District No. 3 there will be a limit of 300 traps, and this will be reduced to 200 in 1969.
In District No. 5, and in that portion of District No. 4 between Baccaro Point and Cole Harbour a trap limit of 250 has been set for 1968, with a reduction to 150 in 1969.
In District No. 6A there will be a limit of 300 traps in 1968 with a reduction to 200 for the 1969 season.
In District No. 7B there will be a limit of 400 traps in 1968 and this will be reduced to 300 traps in 1969.
In District No. 8 there has been a lobster trap limit of 250 for the past two years, and this will remain for 1968.
These lobster trap limits are based on extensive studies by both the department and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Mr. Robichaud pointed out that the majority of lobster fishermen in all districts favour some limitation of the numbers permitted to engage in the fishery and, in addition to the trap limits, consideration is being given to means of restricting entry into the lobster fishery in an equitable manner.
Earlier this year Mr. Robichaud pointed out that lobsters are a vital resource for thousands of Canada's inshore fishermen. This made it imperative that this resource be managed as wisely as possible to ensure its
continuance on a profitable basis to the fishermen.
The lobster fishing effort has greatly increased in the past several years, and thousands of small boats are engaged in harvesting this lucrative crustacean. Last year there were 25,000 lobster fishing licences issued. This was 200 over the previous year. In 1966 more than 30 million pounds of lobster were landed, and a total of $18,000,000 was received by fishermen.
The areas covered by the different districts are as follows:
District No. 1-In the bay of Fundy off the New Brunswick counties of Charlotte and St. John.
District No. 3-In the bay of Fundy off the Nova Scotia counties of Annapolis, Kings, Hants, Colchester and Cumberland, and the New Brunswick counties of Albert and Westmorland.
District No. 4-Off the Nova Scotia counties of Digby, Yarmouth, Shelbourne, Queens, Lunenburg and part of Halifax county.
District No. 5-Off the Nova Scotia counties of Guysborough and that part of Halifax County east of Cole Harbour.
District No. 6A-Takes in that part of the southern-eastern shore of Cape Breton island from Pointe Michaud to Indian Pt.
District No. 6B-That part of Cape Breton from Indian Pt. to High Capes.
District No. 7A-Off the Nova Scotia counties of Richmond and that part of Guysborough between Ragged Pt. and Pointe Michaud.
District 7B-Takes in Nova Scotia counties of Inverness, Antigonish, Pictou, Colchester and part of Cumberland, and the P.E.I. counties of Queens and Kings and the north shore of Prince county.
District 7C-Off the New Brunswick counties of Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland.
District 8-Off the New Brunswick counties of Kent, Westmorland and part of Cumberland, also off the western side of the P.E.I. county of Prince.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 6, 1967