1967-10-17

HIGHWAY SAFETY


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Department of Transport has been assigned the responsibility for the federal government's role and leadership in the field of motor vehicle and highway safety. In formulating its program the government will utilize and co-ordinate the efforts of all federal government departments concerned with the many aspects of motor vehicle and highway safety, and will also draw on the resources of other Canadian authorities concerned with this matter.
The government, in taking this initiative, has been assisted and guided by the report on auto safety prepared by the House of Commons standing committee on justice and legal affairs, and by the consultations on motor vehicle and highway safety which have been held with representatives of the provincial governments. Particular attention in carrying out the program will be given to the responsibilities of the different levels of government in this field of activity.
The government's first step will be to establish in the Department of Transport a unit which will co-ordinate the federal government's participation in the program. Action will also be taken by the federal government, after further discussions with the provinces, to establish national standards and practices affecting motor vehicle safety. It is also intended to create a public advisory board composed of representatives from the provinces, the industry, safety organizations and other interested groups. This board will be an important source of advice and guidance to the Minister of Transport on motor vehicle and highway safety.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for this most important announcement,
27053-200S
and he surely can count on continued bipartisan interest and support from this side of the house in this most serious field.
In brief reply to his announcement may I outline the following. On September 13, 1899, Mr. H. H. Bliss, a real estate dealer, was struck and killed by a car as he stepped off a trolley at Central Park West and 74th Street in New York city. He was the first victim of the automobile age. Since that day road accidents have caused the death of more than one and three quarter million Americans and Canadians, more than all the casualties of all the wars in American and Canadian history.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)
In both countries the automobile is the third greatest killer after cancer and heart disease. It is the No. 1 killer of our young people between the ages of 16 and 35. In Canada in 1965 there were close to 5,000 traffic deaths and 150,000 injuries. More than two thirds of those reported injuries involved lifetime disability. In other words the number of those permanently disabled in any one year equals the population of a large city. The direct cost to the Canadian economy was close to three quarters of a billion dollars.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I pinpoint what I believe must be done in this area. Because of automobile model similarities in Canada and the United States, obviously we have a common interest in the field, but let us hope this does not mean we shall depend entirely on the United States for highway safety, protection and legislation. The Canadian government received the brief on highway deaths and injuries in July, 1965, so we in Canada became interested in this problem long before the United States.
Therefore I say that under the direction of this minister Canada can take a lead in combating this world wide epidemic. It is my belief that we must immediately set up a national accident prevention research centre under the National Research Council. We spent millions of dollars investigating the aircraft crash at Ste. Therese which unfortunately took 100 lives, but we lose this many lives on our roads every week and do not spend any public or private money in research in this field.
3164	COMMONS
Federal Program of Transport Department
I believe we should co-operate with the state of New York in the building of a prototype safety car. We should insist that the federal and provincial governments enforce standards codified and agreed upon after the Ottawa meeting that took place about a year ago. We should encourage the automobile industry to forgo for some time spending millions of dollars on needless style changes and devoting the money saved to safety and safety features.
Each and every individual citizen has his or her role to play. It seems to me that when we are talking about sending people to the moon and bringing them back safely, we can end this senseless slaughter on our highways. Automobiles, like other forms of transportation, aircraft and the rolling stock on the railways will have to be brought under the rule of law.
We welcome this announcement by the minister.


Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as far as it goes, and as late as it comes, I am sure the government's announcement will be welcomed by all those concerned in the task of reducing the warlike casualty toll on our highways. On the basis of the figures for the past five years, 25,000 Canadians have been killed and 750,000 have been injured on our roads. The economic toll, as has already been said, runs into billions of dollars. Canada' record in this field is one of the worst in the world.
There are three main ingredients in this problem; one, the car; two, the driver; and three, the environment, namely the road. The minister's announcement aims at grappling with one of these issues. We will be examining his proposals in detail and in the light of the justice committee report which unanimously called for the setting up of standards of inspection and quality control right to the manufacturing plant level.
It must be kept in mind, however, that a safe car will not by itself greatly reduce the number of accidents. We hope it will help to greatly reduce the effect of the accidents. We also hope the justice department will make this attack on motor vehicle danger a twopronged one by legislating against, for example, drinking drivers, as the Minister of Justice has promised.
In conclusion let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party will continue to do all we can to make the traffic safety legislation effective and businesslike.

DEBATES	October 17. 1967


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the announcement by the minister assigning to the Department of Transport responsibilities in the field of motor vehicle and highway safety. Judging by the astounding figures published every week end the number of deaths which occur owing to automobile accidents has greatly increased in the last few years. However, I wish to point out that there seems to be a growing tendency to put the blame on the manufacturers of automobiles in spite of the fact that it is the driver behind the wheel who is most to blame.
I do not wish to say that automobiles are not up to the required standard, and it is certainly a fact that many improvements have been made to them. I presume that work in that direction will continue, but a car is a product made by a company, and it has to be sold. There is always room for improvement in this field, but there is still more room for improvement in the man sitting behind the wheel.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister and any hon. member who might be interested to an interesting article which appeared in Reader's Digest written by a test driver. He stated that throughout his life he has driven at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, and he has not been killed nor has he killed any of his passengers. He knew what the automobile could stand and what he himself could do, and he did not demand of the car or himself more than could be done.
The hon. member for New Westminster stated there were three factors which should be considered, namely the automobile, the driver and the road conditions. There are many roads traversing this country and we have many automobiles, but it is the efficiency of the driver which has the greatest bearing on automobile accidents. There is a member in this house, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) about whom I might say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I am sure he is entitled to the same leeway as that which was accorded other members who have taken part in this debate. I must remind him and all other hon. members of the provisions of standing order 15, which states that a member of the government may make a brief statement and that representatives of parties in opposition may comment briefly. Of course brevity is a very relative term, but I think the hon. member at this point may be going beyond the limitation of the rule.
October 17, 1967


Raymond Langlois: I thank Your Honour for bringing me back to the subject matter. I had not realized I was speaking on any other subject. It is my belief, however, that I should be allowed at least to give this group's opinion as to the work which should be done by the committee which the minister intends to set up and which would be working in conjunction with the provinces. I am trying to combat the existing tendency to put all the blame on one person. I think it is our duty at present to direct the committee to work toward reducing as much as possible the rate of car accidents.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
My main point is that it might be possible to reduce the growing number of gadgets in automobiles, such as safety belts. I think 90 per cent of the people using cars do not use safety belts. We might as well take them out, because we are paying for something we are not using. I still insist that the insurance companies themselves are involved in this issue of safe driving.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond Langlois: If I may close with this statement, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to look not only to the automobile manufacturers in relation to this question of safety but also at the drivers of automobiles, their ability to drive and the roads on which people are driving in this country.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: At this point I hesitate to rise, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that we welcome the announcement by the minister. I hope that in his consideration of this matter he will pay special attention to the older automobiles that are on the highways, and the safety of automobiles already on the highways today. Various things can happen to automobiles which make them unsafe and I feel there are many unsafe old automobiles on the highways.
However, I should like to make one further point. I think we ought to be looking toward the establishment of a highway patrol system not designed to arrest people but to take photographs with high speed equipment of the actions of drivers on the highways. In this way bad drivers could be brought to the attention of the courts and, through the process of law, removed from the highway or given training courses in which they would learn to drive.
Inquiries of the Ministry NOVA SCOTIA



DEVELOPMENT OF DEEP SEA PORT-PROPOSED CLOSING OF STEEL MILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask if his attention has been drawn to a speech by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development in Banff yesterday in which he stated the federal government was considering the development of a deep sea port in the strait of Canso area. Does this statement represent government policy?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The report I have read of that statement by the minister, delivered at a conference in Banff, does not quite coincide with my hon. friend's interpretation of it. I did see this report. The minister will be back tomorrow, and I will be discussing his statement with him.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
ask a supplementary question which is related to a question I asked the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development not long ago. Will the Prime Minister request the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development to proceed immediately with the plan which resulted from the study of the nine northern counties in Nova Scotia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss that matter also, so we can add to the progress being made in that part of Nova Scotia.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Were these plans for the new port that has been mentioned brought to the attention of Dosco management before their decision was made to close out the operations of the company?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure to what my hon. friend is referring, the new board or the corporation.


George Harris Hees: I am referring to the board of the Dosco Corporation which made the decision to close out the operations of the plant next April.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The two matters are not related. The first information we received about the plan of the corporation was last Friday, as we indicated yesterday.

October 17. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: My question was whether the Dosco Company was advised of the government's plan to build this new port before the board made its decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend has assumed that there has been a particular plan for a particular new port. I said this matter will be discussed with the minister. The corporation was aware of the government's plans generally for development in that area.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has Dosco in the past three years received any federal grants through the Department of Industry's area assistance program or any other program of that department? If so, could the minister say what were the amounts and for what purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the type of question that can be asked now.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question, in that this matter has been discussed and is urgent. Certainly we would like to know what course may be charted and what proposal may be put to this company in respect of this closure.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question was asking for a listing or enumeration of assistance which might have been given to the company over a period of three years, and therefore is not the type of question which can be asked now.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising from the Prime Minister's answer to the effect that he did not know this corporation's plans until last Friday. I was not too sure whether he was referring to Dosco or to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Was the Prime Minister or any member of his cabinet aware of Dosco's announced intentions before last Thursday, and since Dosco announced its intentions has the cabinet met to discuss the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the first information we got with regard to the intention of Dosco was, as I indicated, at the end of last week. Since that time, beginning Friday morning, cabinet has met both as a full cabinet and in committee to discuss what can be done in the face of this situation. At the present time two ministers and officials concerned are on their way down to Nova Scotia for a meeting this evening.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister indicate in what direction the cabinet intends to move or what plans it has formulated regarding this closure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I would ask the minister whether he was aware before Thursday of Dosco's announced intention to close, and whether the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member asked this question of the Prime Minister a moment ago, and I suggest that an answer was given.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, I asked the Prime Minister whether he, as Prime Minister, or any of his colleagues were aware of the decision. Now it is quite possible that the Minister of Industry could be aware of it but that the Prime Minister had not been informed.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not attempt to ask that question of every member of the government.


Malcolm MacInnis: That would be one way of getting an answer, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the remaining part of the question. Is the government formulating plans for a closure of the Sydney steel operation, or is an effort being made to maintain that operation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: As the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated yesterday, notice of Dosco's intention came to the government- and this includes myself-for the first time last Thursday. I had no previous knowledge of this, nor did my colleagues. They are now endeavouring to co-operate with the government of Nova Scotia to ascertain the basic background in detail and to see what steps could be taken to alleviate what is a very serious situation in Cape Breton.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps, in order to get to the basis of the
October 17, 1967

information I am seeking, the minister would give me a clear-cut answer. Is the government formulating plans for the closure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked a question which was certainly heard by the minister-I heard it clearly-and the minister seems to have given an answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, the minister did not answer that portion of the question with which the people of Cape Breton are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should hope this
matter the hon. member is raising will continue to be handled in the way it was handled yesterday, and I would invite the hon. member who asked the question not to proceed further.


Malcolm MacInnis: I intend to do that; I hope to handle this matter in the same way it was handled yesterday. That is why I asked the minister whether the government was formulating plans for the closure of the operation, or whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and others in the government are co-operating in an effort to see the operation is continued.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The plan to close was announced, not as a plan of the government but as a plan of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. Consequently the government is not formulating plans to close the operation. As yet we are not in a position to say intelligently what should be done. I would be not only imprudent but, I think, stupid to try to indicate to the hon. member that we now know all the answers.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. I see that I shall not get answers other than by rising on a question of privilege. I would now ask the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues to read the statement made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development in Banff yesterday, and explain to this house why it is that a minister of the crown can go to Banff,
2,000	miles away, and speak of the plans this government has for the cutting back or phasing out of the Sydney steel industry. Why are we not given honest answers? There are lies being told in the house. Members opposite should make up their minds who is telling the lies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



CANCELLATION OF GAS TURBINE ENGINE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry with respect to the announced cancellation of the OT-4 development program which is being conducted by Orenda Limited of Malton, Ontario. In view of the fact that this project for the development of an industrial gas turbine engine was being jointly financed by the United States and Canadian governments, may I ask the minister why the Canadian financial assistance has been withdrawn and the project cancelled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, projects of this character are reviewed periodically, at least every six months. It became apparent on a previous review that this particular technique of developing or generating power by an industrial turbine was being overtaken by other developments elsewhere. Consequently at the last review there was agreement among the company, the government of Canada and the government of the United States that it would not be profitable to proceed any further with this development, and on an agreed basis it was abandoned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that some 200 persons will become unemployed, some 80 of whom are highly skilled development engineers who are in short supply in this country, is the government intending to make any use (a) of these trained design engineers who are badly needed, and (b) of the information which has been gathered regarding this type of industrial turbine engine for use in further development in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, Orenda Engines is continuing development of gas turbines. This is one particular type of gas turbine. The information gained will therefore be useful within Orenda Engines on a continuing basis. As the hon. member pointed out, this type of engineering technician is currently in short supply in Canada, and I do not imagine those who have been released will experience much difficulty in being taken up elsewhere. Indeed, there is United Aircraft in Longueuil which is doing a similar kind of work, especially for the Royal Canadian Navy, and they are seeking additional engineering talent of this kind.
October 17, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any of the information or research material which has been gained as a result of this development project being turned over to the Cummins Diesel company of the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not know that, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Palierson@Fraser Valley: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a reported statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations that another meeting between the United States and Egyptian delegates was being held and that this meeting might lead to an agreement on which to base security council action for a Middle East solution, might I ask whether the government has received information to provide the basis for any hope that an early settlement may be reached?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has not only been informed of the discussions that have taken place between the Soviet union and the United States ambassadors at the United Nations, but we have participated in some discussions during the past few weeks. In the month of July Canada had proposed as a minimum requirement for reaching a permanent settlement, that there should be appointed a representative of the Secretary General who would act as a communications link between the parties in the Middle East situation.
That proposal is part of the subject matter of the discussions, but no agreement has been reached, certainly no agreement sufficient to warrant a general agreement that there should be an immediate meeting of the security council.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I welcome him back from his trade mission to Japan. It is reported that trade officials have stated that the export of wheat out of Vancouver has been reduced to a trickle. Did the minister

obtain a positive assurance from the trade officials and minister of agriculture of Japan that Canada would regain her wheat export market in that country?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, after visiting Japan and receiving a friendly, indeed a cordial reception-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Did you talk about wheat?


Robert Henry Winters: -I discussed a number of trade matters including, of course, wheat. I think it is fair to say that the trip was productive. I hope that exports of wheat to Japan will now resume a more normal pattern.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the minister's trip was productive. I wonder whether the minister can now tell us if Canada's plan of subsidizing wheat sales is assisting us to regain our markets in Japan as against the United States dumping of wheat.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker. Since the action that we took has had the effect of strengthening the world market, the current price of wheat has been within the range agreed to at Geneva in the subsequent international wheat agreement.


George Harris Hees: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister was in Japan did he have talks with the Japanese government to get an indication of whether there would be additional markets for Canadian steel in Japan?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, we discussed a wide variety of subjects, including steel and other commodities. I can say that I expect our trade with Japan will expand in both directions.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister the assurance from the exporting and importing countries that if we should sell our wheat at below the minimum price the international wheat agreement will still be ratified?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question appears to be hypothetical.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he assure the textile manufacturers and shoe manufacturers that our trade with Japan will be improved and that our industries here will be protected?
October 17, 1967


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think that subject has been covered quite often in the house. The recent actions by the Minister of Finance following his conversations with the Japanese government as they relate to textile imports I think have already been reported. As for shoes, while there is a large volume of imports into Canada we are also exporting a great many shoes. I hope the tariff adjustments under the Kennedy round will benefit Canadian producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a further question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to wheat sales. From how many countries has he received an indication that they intend to ratify the wheat agreement which comes into effect on July 1?


Robert Henry Winters: I think that this convention is open for signature now. The Canadian government has indicated its intention to ratify; it remains to be seen how many other countries indicate their intention by signing the book which is open now in Washington. I expect that all countries will wish to ratify the agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How many of the importing countries have already ratified the agreement or signified their intention to ratify it?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it is a little premature to say. The date for ratification is July 1, 1968, and I am sure that within the course of the next few weeks there will be a clearer indication.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is not November 30 the deadline for ratification by importing countries?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister advise the house as to the current status of the centennial medal, the number already issued and the number expected to be issued in the near future?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts about that question. The hon. member is inviting the Secretary of State to make a statement which could be made on motions. If the
Inquiries of the Ministry house wishes to hear the information from the Secretary of State I shall allow the question; otherwise I think the minister could answer it on motions. Is it the wish of the house that the question be allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question yesterday. I find that several thousand recommendations have already been received by the department. They are coming from the agencies and national associations which the Prime Minister specified in his announcement. We hope that very shortly the medals will be distributed to meritorious Canadians on the basis, so far as civilians are concerned, of something like one for every thousand of population.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a serious question, but I must say that, for a moment I had contemplated asking the Prime Minister if he knew what announcement the hon. lady referred to; from his expression it seemed that he did not know.
My serious question is also for the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the recent statement attributed to Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick that as a result of his request, the government of Canada will review the medicare program with the provinces before July next? Is this so and a fact, has the government arrived at this intention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure my hon. friend that all constructive members of the opposition will be included in the list for centennial medals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the second question, I have not heard of that statement but I shall be very glad to look into it.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please.\n[Mr. Keays.l\nDEBATES\tOctober 17, 1967']
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the continuing deficit being brought about
3170	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry through transactions in our outstanding securities in other countries? Has he any information for this house as to how he intends to reverse the trend?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is much too general in scope. I doubt whether it can be asked at this time.


Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask whether, over and above the $40,000 the federal government contributed to the international sculpture symposium, the federal government paid anything for the welded auto bumpers that were obtained from the New York sculptor last week, and was this expenditure approved by the Minister of Finance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That was a gift, gratis, from the grateful sculptor, Mr. Jason Seley, to the Department of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Nielsen:: That is the auto safety campaign.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman assist the understanding of hon. members by tabling a list of grants and other benefits which have accrued to the various countries whose dignitaries have visited Canada this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If this question were placed on the order paper I believe it could be dealt with.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I have a question to direct to the Solicitor General. Is the hon. gentleman aware that Radio Havana is broadcasting a daily half hour program on the 49 metre band in French, beamed directly at Quebec listeners and giving instructions in subversive activity and guerrilla warfare, and that in recent weeks a second program has been added, this time beamed to the western Canadian Indian and Metis population, urging them to rise in a "red power" rebellion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is the minister aware of this subversive broadcasting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	October 17, 1967



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the hon. gentleman advise the house whether the government will meet with interested parties on the question of less than carload freight rates in the maritime provinces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure we would be glad to do so at an appropriate time, Mr. Speaker. This question has been referred not only to the officials of my department but to the railway companies and to the Canadian transport commission for consideration and advice. As soon as I have had an opportunity to meet with some of my officials I shall be in a better position to advise the hon. member when such a discussion might take place.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister be kind enough to indicate to the house the date by which he expects the special study on maritime freight rates to come within the purview of this house?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take that question as notice.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister; it refers to the forthcoming visit to Rhodesia of the United Kingdom commonwealth relations secretary. Considering the established pattern of commonwealth consultation on the Rhodesia question, can the Prime Minister advise us whether the government of Canada was informed of the proposed visit and whether Mr. Thompson's initiative may be regarded as a new commonwealth effort to deal with the Rhodesian problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were informed of the proposed visit, but I do not think it can be interpreted as a new commonwealth effort. It is rather an investigatory visit by the new Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.
October 17. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL DEFENCE	FINANCE



REPORTED AMALGAMATION OF PROVOST CORPS AND INTELLIGENCE CORPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Have the Canadian Intelligence Corps and the Canadian Provost Corps been amalgamated, and are officers and men of these corps now being trained in one school at Camp Borden?


Mr. Speaker:: I think such a question should be placed on the order paper.



REPORTED REFUELLING OF U.S. BOMBERS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which concerns a great many people. On October 2 my hon. friend from Danforth asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Does the government have any information on the rumours circulating to the effect that United States bombers are refuelling in Canada as one of two stages, one stage being in Alberta and the other in Alaska? If so, can the Prime Minister say whether these rumours are true.
To which the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have no information whatever which would support that statement insofar as Alberta is concerned, but I will be glad to make inquiries.
My question-and perhaps I should more properly address it to the Prime Minister-is, has the Prime Minister any further information to give the house with respect to this unprecedented situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me to reply. I can say that there was no truth whatever in that story. I made an investigation and found there was no truth in it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it true that the government has placed a ceiling of $150 million on the cost of construction of the Northumberland causeway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which cannot be asked at this time.
27053-20H



TAX INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE GREATER PRODUCTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government giving consideration to introducing tax incentives in the near future designed to induce greater industrial productivity?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I doubt whether it would be proper in answer to a question on orders of the day to give any indication of government financial policy of this kind.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware that in the debate on the budget which has just been completed I asked him to reply to this question within the next day and a half, and he refused to do so. Would he therefore do so now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state whether organizational changes are taking place in the Company of Young Canadians in order to overcome some of the problems which have existed within that group, and will the budget of $2.8 million for this year be maintained at its present level?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The budget is in accord with the desire of the government to reduce expenditures, and wherever possible they will be reduced.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Friday last I asked the Prime Minister whether he could make a statement about the results of his meeting with Premier Roblin concerning the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg. The Prime Minister said he was having a discussion with
October 17, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Transport and planned to make a further report to Mr. Roblin after that discussion. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to indicate what further information has been communicated by the government of Canada to the government of Manitoba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the Minister of Transport will be able to make a statement before long. He is looking into the matter. He has already seen the president of Air Canada, and as soon as there is anything to report I can assure my hon. friend that this will be done.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. Like many members I am receiving letters from war veterans and retired civil servants asking if and when they will receive an increase in their pensions. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation before Christmas, or is this a matter which is affected by the economy measures which I understand the government is practising?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that this is a question which has already been asked by other hon. members during the past few days.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainfe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put to the Secretary of State a question which I consider urgent since it affects the economy of the Canadian metropolis. Is she in a position to say what is happening with the construction of Place Radio-Canada in Montreal and will the government continue to delay the start of this undertaking which the present government has been doing for two years now?


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has noted, this involves an undertaking which seems somewhat delayed and I believe that in the


circumstances, the question may easily be put on the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
If I put this question now, it is because the undertaking has already been delayed for two years and the minister has publicly given the undertaking that this construction would be proceeded with. So I am asking what she intends to do about this?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Postmaster General. Is he in a position to confirm or deny reports of last week that medical and first aid supplies being sent parcel post by one or two Canadian church groups were turned back at a point of transshipment in San Francisco? If so, can the minister say whether any representations have been made to the International Postal Union in that regard?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I will take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) concerning his intention of amending the Criminal Code in order to allow a national lottery in the future.
Before amending the Criminal Code, does the Minister of Justice intend to submit this plan for study to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I must correct the hon. member for Megantic. I said that the bill to amend the Criminal Code would include provisions concerning lotteries, but I did not indicate the purport of that amendment.
October 17, 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy As for the	second part of the question, I	Transport.	I wonder whether he is in a posifeel that the	procedure to be followed is to	tion today	to	reply to a question I asked himintroduce the	bill and then allow both houses	last week,	of	which he took notice, regardingto suggest, if	they so desire, that the bill be	the removal	of the arbitration clause from
referred to a committee. But on this last ship tenders of his department, point, I cannot anticipate anything.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell the house roughly when the government will table that bill?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, that matter is the responsibility of the leader of the house. Assuredly, we are very eager to adopt several measures and I trust the opposition will cooperate with us.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a last supplementary question to the minister.
I am sure the opposition will always be willing to co-operate with the minister. In any event, has the province of Quebec, as a result of the statement made by the Minister of Justice, indicated its intention with regard to this bill, that is to say indicated whether or not it intends to introduce a bill to allow lotteries in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I have often been told, I am not empowered to speak on behalf of the government of the province of Quebec.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister concerning his intention to amend the criminal code in that connection. Has he consulted the provinces in this connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the jurisdiction of the federal government over the criminal code is clearly established by the constitution. However, when we want to bring about amendments concerning the whole country, we consult the people concerned in the matter. We receive especially representations from all interested people. However, I do not think that in the discharge of our legal jurisdiction we should, every time we want to take action, consult people who have no jurisdiction in the matter.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the close relationship between Canadian foreign policy and Canadian defence policy I should like to ask whether he will use his influence to try to arrange a joint meeting of the committee on external affairs and the committee on national defence in order that they may jointly consider the position of Canada within NATO and NORAD, as those two agreements are now coming to a close.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether I have very much influence in a matter of that kind, but I shall be very glad to discuss this proposal with the two ministers concerned and with the chairmen of the two committees.



BROADCASTING


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the question of broadcasting in Canada, which is the subject covered by the resolution with which we are dealing today, has been discussed now for almost three years at great length both inside and outside this chamber. For that reason I will not speak for very long today.
Last year the government produced a white paper giving its intentions with regard to new legislation in this field. It will be recalled that that white paper became the subject of careful and detailed investigation by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. In preparing the bill which will be exposed following first reading we
October 17, 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy gave very careful consideration to the very lucid and comprehensive report prepared by the standing committee.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think most hon. members will recall that the standing committee's report followed very closely the principles enunciated in the white paper on broadcasting. Therefore the legislation has been framed in such a way as to establish a statutory policy for broadcasting in Canada and to assign the responsibility for interpretation and implementation of that policy to an independent public authority. Accordingly the objectives of the legislation closely follow the principles set forth in the white paper, but in some cases amplified by the report, by the observations and recommendations of the standing committee.
The most important of the principles is surely that which established that the airwaves, which must be shared between public and private broadcasters, are public property and that they constitute a single broadcasting system. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of broadcasting as a means of preserving and strengthening the cultural, social, political and economic fabric of Canada, and the system therefore has to be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. It should be just as clear that every broadcaster, whether public or private, has a public responsibility for the effects of the programs he broadcasts. There must be reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy.
The programming provided by the system as a whole has to be very comprehensive, making the most practical use of Canadian resources and talent. The Canadian listening and watching public will accept nothing less.
Second, since the costs of operating both the public and private elements of the system are, in the end, borne by the public as a whole, it is quite clear that every Canadian is entitled to broadcasting service. Moreover, since we live in a country of two official languages each Canadian is entitled to broadcasting service in the language of his choice, English or French. The only limitation on these objectives is the availability of public funds to provide these services in all parts of Canada. But it must be recognized that the extension of coverage, now that we have provided coverage in the heavily populated areas and are getting into the more remote areas, involves increasingly heavy per capita costs which can only be given an appropriate priority in relation to other essential expenditures.
[Miss LaMarsh.3
Third, there can be no question but that this country needs a national broadcasting service in English and French, the requirements of which must have clear priority over the interests of the private broadcasters. Accordingly the legislation has been framed to emphasize this point, to establish the objectives of the national broadcasting service in clear statutory form, and to define as precisely as possible the areas of responsibility in relationships between the regulatory authority and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I should like to refer briefly to two other matters. While the legislation which the government is now seeking permission to introduce will declare that facilities for educational broadcasting are to be provided within the framework of the single broadcasting system, and therefore subject to the regulatory authority like all other broadcasting undertakings, the bill will not make specific reference to the provision of these facilities. I think most hon. members will understand it is our intention to bring forward a separate bill for this purpose, which will be drafted in its final form only after the subject has been thoroughly considered and carefully examined by the standing committee whose recommendations, needless to say, will be taken into full and careful consideration after the committee has heard witnesses and has reported to the house.
I should perhaps add that although following precedent I am moving a resolution to introduce the broadcasting bill, the bill does not in its present form make specific provision for meeting the cost of operating the C.B.C. It is our intention to recommend to parliament the adoption of a financing formula which will afford to the C.B.C. an assurance of the moneys that are to be made available over a five year period so that the corporation can more effectively plan its future operations on a rational basis. The details of such a formula are at present being worked out by officials of the departments concerned in consultation with the corporation, and it is the intention of the government to introduce separate legislation for this purpose before the end of the current fiscal year.
The preparation of legislation on such a complex subject as broadcasting is a matter that is not undertaken lightly. We do not amend our broadcasting legislation or replace it by new legislation often. We must, of course, give the most scrupulous attention to the public and parliamentary discussion which has taken place over the last two or
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
three years, and this we have attempted to do while still proceeding with all reasonable dispatch. Now, however, the time has come for hon. members to see the details of the bill, to which I hope they will be able to address themselves at length on second reading.
Therefore I hope that during today's debate the committee will have an opportunity to pass the resolution as quickly as possible so that hon. members may without delay get on to discussion of the measure itself. I would anticipate that when today's debate has concluded, following first reading and exposure of the bill hon. members will have at least the remainder of this week to look over it before proceeding to any further legislative steps.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, rather than calling this particular parliamentary procedure a debate on the resolution stage it might better be called shadowboxing because in effect this is what we do on much of the legislation that is introduced with an accompanying explanation so inadequate as almost to leave one in doubt as to the actual subject being dealt with. However, if one is not being informed this afternoon, either by the minister or by any details in the resolution, one certainly has been able to get a great deal of information in listening to the discussion that has gone on, in circles large and small, during the past few months. One has even been able to hear comments to the effect that the bill which will be presented to us later this day has gone through many changes, many amendments. Indeed, it may not be surprising to find written on the front of it, "Subject to change without notice." Such is the interest and such the tension and conflict which exist in discussions centring on a new broadcasting act for Canada.
As the minister remarked, there has been a great deal of discussion in committee. In March, 1967, the House of Commons broadcasting committee produced its final report, having based much of its discussion and consideration on the white paper that had been submitted the previous year. Now the minister has suggested that since there has been this great amount of examination and discussion, both in committee and among the public in general, it should be possible to move quickly with the passage of the bill through the house. However, we must not confuse discussion about many matters concerning broadcasting with the specific proposals that the government will present in its bill.
I strongly suggest that we ought to reserve the right to consider whether or not, in the
DEBATES	3175
Canadian Broadcasting Policy light of the specific provisions contained in the bill, it may be necessary to call the broadcasting committee into session again in order that it may give the bill detailed examination and, if necessary, hear witnesses who have particular knowledge and information, people who can assist the committee, parliament and the government in drafting the most responsible legislation possible. Any suggestion that we have already spent a great deal of time discussing these matters, or that we may extend the business of implementing the bill by six weeks or two months, is merely peripheral to the point at hand, which is that we are laying down for the next decade fundamental principles and structures for broadcasting, both public and private, and it may well be important for the standing committee not only to meet and discuss the bill itself but also to call key witnesses in order to complete this job faithfully and well.
Broadcasting is a difficult subject to talk about at any time. Each of us has his own subjective opinion of what broadcasting is all about. Broadcasting today, of course, represents one large facet of man's communication with man. More and more theologians, social scientists, yes, even politicians, are becoming aware that steps toward progress and change are often related to this crucial area of communication. Much that has happened for ill in our society today is related to our loss of sensitivity, our lack of imagination and the difficulty we have in achieving creative solutions to difficult problems. Often communication, which should be direct and helpful, becomes lost in a sea of red tape. Often in trying to implement decisions we are completely fouled up by our bureaucracy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Communication in our society is one of the vital tools that allows man to be fully human. Indeed, communication is so important in our world today that one might almost equate it with survival. Therefore what we are starting here this afternoon is a discussion of legislation directly related to our public responsibility in broadcasting.
Broadcasting in this country has a unique role to play. It is perhaps much more important than any other facet of life that is controlled or regulated by this parliament. I would go so far as to suggest that broadcasting is essential not only to the future of the Canadian identity but indeed to its very continuance. Interestingly enough, we are being called upon to frame new legislation with respect to broadcasting in a year in which we have been extremely self-conscious. In our
3176	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Policy centennial year we have become, perhaps much more than at any other time in our history, conscious of what it has meant to be a Canadian. No matter where we have lived in this country, we have had an opportunity to be reminded in some way or other of the Canadian identity. First and foremost, of course, this has occurred within the milieu of Expo itself. Therefore, when we are considering broadcasting we are considering something that will build upon all the good that has been gained through the centennial and Expo celebrations that we have enjoyed.
I think it is important to remember that we must do more than simply allow structures to exist. We must give them some direction. That is why I think it is so terribly important to look at parts of the report of the house committee on broadcasting, which I believe in some ways went beyond the work that was outlined for us in the white paper. On page 4 of that report the committee said, referring to the general objectives of broadcasting:
A distinctly Canadian broadcasting system is essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century. Transportation was a key factor in shaping Canada in the past. Communications will play a major role in shaping the Canada of the future. It has been said that transportation is the skeleton on which the Canadian body politic has grown during the past one hundred years.
This is the important sentence:
In future, broadcasting may well be regarded as the central nervous system of Canadian nationhood.
I believe this is the kind of responsibility with which we are faced this afternoon. The committee went on to suggest that fundamental to any consideration of broadcasting policy is the fact that the airwaves are indeed public property. The minister suggested this today. We have a great responsibility, one that I suggest is not only to define the structures that will exist to encourage public and private broadcasting but also we must, much more than we have to date, define the objectives of broadcasting.
If we have been frustrated by situations which have arisen in either the private or public sector of broadcasting, if we have been concerned about the conflict between personalities or approaches, part of the fault must rest with parliament which has, I believe, failed in previous times to state the objectives that we earnestly hoped and desired would exist in broadcasting in this country. As the committee suggested in March, it is the responsibility of parliament to define the public interest to be served by our broadcasting system and to enunciate the national policy.

DEBATES	October 17, 1967
What is that responsibility? In the first instance, surely it is to indicate how parliament is to entrust this precious opportunity of broadcasting so it will be faithfully exercised. One is struck by this fact in the reports of the Fowler committee of 1957 and 1965. One of the clear, ringing necessities that became apparent to the members of that committee was never fully explored by parliament. It is that there must be a full and complete line of authority so that all segments of broadcasting in this country are fully responsible in their own areas.
The difficulties that have existed throughout the last decade because of conflicts from time to time between the C.B.C. and the B.B.G., or between the C.B.C. and parliament or its parliamentary committees, are ones that surely must be overcome, or at least the framework for overcoming them should be established in this new legislation. It is my belief that unless we face the fact that there has to be a clear line of responsibility we will find ourselves far too often either in the house or in committee seized with internal problems of broadcasting with which we should not be confronted. This is suggested in the white paper, from which I quote the following words:
These fears can best be dispelled by providing statutory machinery which distinguishes clearly between the total delegation of authority over programming on the one hand, and ultimate authority over the structure of the system on the other.
If we are not prepared to state clearly where the responsibility for broadcasting must rest on a day to day and month by month basis, I believe that all too often parliament will become embroiled in broadcasting questions which it has no real right or ability to become involved with. I am just as concerned, in giving broadcasting the necessary mandate to function creatively and productively, that we make it clear that no minister, no government and no parliamentary committee will become so involved in the business of broadcasting as to subvert its basic purposes.
The difference between public and state broadcasting is, I think, often confused in the minds of many. Fortunately we have managed to steer clear for almost 40 years of the dangers that are involved in state broadcasting. In public broadcasting we have attempted to achieve, but not always with
October 17, 1967

success, the ideal outlined by the Fowler committee report of 1965 which said:
One of the essential tasks of a broadcasting system is to stir up the minds and emotions of the people, and occasionally to make large numbers of them acutely uncomfortable.
Unless a public system is allowed that kind of freedom, we are in danger of creating broadcasting institutions which may descend to becoming nothing more than the mouthpiece of a minister, a government or a parliament.
It is undoubtedly true that one of the major questions, if not the major one, facing us here, and certainly facing many who are concerned about the future of broadcasting in this country, is the problem of programming. I think that here we have entered into a new era of which we have not been conscious. The minister referred to it briefly in her speech when she said that we have basically established the necessary facilities to serve the country adequately. This is not to say that there are not certain glaring omissions. C.B.C. service is certainly demanded in provinces such as New Brunswick and Saskatchewan where it is inadequate as it exists.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, we must recognize the fact that having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to establish a broadcasting service which is technically second to none we have reached a point at which the technical facilities and their placement may now be secondary to the content that is carried by it. Unfortunately, because of our preoccupation with the technical side of these rapidly expanding media, regulations have been aimed much more at quantity than at quality, and I believe we must give very serious consideration to the quality of broadcasting. I think it is of extreme importance to many that the board of broadcast governors should be given the necessary powers to exert greater control and supervision over all aspects of broadcasting. We must also overcome a kind of inferiority complex in our concept of broadcasting.
For some years now we have talked about Canadian broadcasting in terms of minimum Canadian content. Surely we should put it the other way and talk about minimum foreign content and realize that our responsibility is not to think of only having so much Canadian quality programming but rather to ensure that apart from a certain minimum of excellent foreign programming all else will be assumed to be the best kind of quality programming that private and public broadcasters can present to the Canadian people.
Canadian Broadcasting Policy
It is difficult, as I said in the beginning, to speak in any detail on a bill which can be conceived of only on the basis of what one may have gathered from reading various reports. Surely we should be giving special attention to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Regardless of our many frustrations and at times disappointments with the C.B.C., it must be said again and again that we shall always be indebted to the technical achievements and gifts of the men who have laboured unceasingly to establish throughout this country a facility of which all Canadians can be proud. But we must not rest there and we must not think that our responsibilities conclude there.
One of the things which disturb me greatly is that in the redrafting of broadcasting policies we may conclude that by some slight adjustments in the appointment of the managing board we can overcome some of the deep-seated problems that presently exist within the C.B.C. This would be an enormous mistake and would perpetuate certain overriding problems which must be met. It is not just a question of new faces in the board room on Bronson avenue. It is a question of structural overhaul, a change of approach, an attitude which must reach all the way from Ottawa to the smallest grouping of C.B.C. staff wherever it may be operating.
I am most concerned that in our suggestions with regard to legislation setting out a new mandate for the C.B.C. we give adequate thought and discussion to the structural changes which are necessary to overcome the arthritic approach which has set in far too often in operations involving the C.B.C. Bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo should never have been allowed to exist in an industry which is at best creative and artistic and at worst some form of government administration or civil service agency which is more anxious to ensure the security of its employees than to carry out its responsibilities in providing a broadcasting service to the Canadian public. Perhaps this has been due to the fact that the C.B.C. has operated as an institution parallel to the government. It has in it far too much of the qualities of the civil service, not in its best but in its worst aspects. This must be set right in this industry if it is to do the job that we all hope it will. This structural overhaul must be considered in this place or else the new personnel charged with responsibilities will fail to know what are the overriding problems facing them.
I am also concerned that in the selection of these key people who will serve as members
October 17. 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy of the board and as senior officers in the corporation-


The Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mongrain:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I hear an objection.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member was not allowed to continue because I would have liked to hear the remainder of his remarks.
The occasional reader of Hansard interested in broadcasting matters may wonder why at this particular point we are dealing with a resolution. We have been promised a new radio act and we do not have it, but the puzzled reader must realize that under our procedures resolutions precede bills and, as the previous speaker mentioned, we are dealing here in generalities and not until the resolution stage is completed will we have the bill and see the new legislation in which we are all very interested.
As the minister pointed out, perhaps few subjects in Canada have been as widely investigated as broadcasting. To name the most recent investigations, we had the committee of Mr. Robert Fowler, the government's white papier and the rather lengthy hearings of the committee on broadcasting. As a member of that committee and as a member of the steering committee which helped draft the report to the house I am of course very interested in seeing the new legislation and seeing how close it comes to the committee's recommendations. I should say that within the committee there was a large degree of unanimity among the members of all parties on the form of legislation which we should have. For example, I can agree with much of what the previous speaker, the hon. member for Prince, has said. There was no serious disagreement among the members of all parties on the main principles concerning broadcasting in Canada.
One can only deal with a small part of the large picture of broadcasting within the limits of a debate such as this one and therefore I will focus on one particular aspect of this matter which has to do with the objectives of broadcasting, what it is all about and the purpose of this extensive collection of talent and equipment in Canada. In my view the primary purpose of broadcasting is neither to

sell products nor to provide transmission facilities for programs coming from other countries. If these were the primary purposes we might as well ask the United States networks to do the job because they can do it very well.
The principal purpose of broadcasting in Canada is to produce Canadian programs of all types for Canadians. For some it would be Festival, for others Wayne and Shuster, for others Don Messer's Jubilee and for others Wojeck. All of these programs may be for the same people. In addition to these programs of entertainment there are public affairs programs both on the C.B.C. and more recently on the private network. I think we do them rather well in this country. However, the main point is the Canadian content in broadcasting.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This has been highlighted recently by the campaign which the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists has mounted in this country to persuade the operators of the networks to put on more Canadian shows and hire more Canadian talent. It is not our place as parliamentarians to be organizers for any particular group. Our job is to say what we believe about broadcasting and what it has to do. We leave the job of organization to the broadcasters and to the performers. However, in their campaign diming the last month or two these people have featured this point. I know there is quite an argument at the present time between the Canadian television networks and ACTRA concerning the accuracy of the figures ACTRA is using.
Quite apart from that, some facts do stand out. It is a fact that a great many talented Canadians have left to go elsewhere. It must be obvious, of course, that I am speaking particularly about the English language television network. It is a fact that Hollywood, New York and London are filled with Canadian performers who have left this country. Some of them would have moved on anyway but many have gone, and have said so, because work opportunities were not available in this country. I could take the time, but I will not, to read a list of such people.
It is a fact that there is not a great deal of Canadian content in the programs which occupy the prime television viewing time on the English language networks. I am being arbitrary here because I am speaking of the period between eight o'clock and ten o'clock in the evening. All you have to do is look at the
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
daily television schedules in the newspapers for both the C.B.C. and C.T.V. to have this fact confirmed for you. The broadcasters have a variety of answers for the lack of Canadian content in programs put on during that period. They say, we would like to do more. Nevertheless, this fact remains.
I do not believe that those of us on the broadcasting committee who drafted this report were unrealistic. We knew very well that Canadians like to watch television programs coming from other countries, particularly from the United States, in addition to Canadian programs. I should like to quote just what we said on this subject. On page 5 of the report of the committee on broadcasting we find this statement:
We are convinced that Canadians want radio and television programs of Canadian origin and character, although programs produced in the United States are available to a majority of Canadians who obviously enjoy them. A Canadian identity demands public affairs and news programs about Canada and about the world through Canadian eyes. Canadian broadcasters have a special responsibility to provide such programs because they will not come from any other source. Although the United States will continue to be the source of many dramatic and variety programs on Canadian stations, Canadian broadcasters must develop such programs in Canada to the fullest extent which availability of talents and resources permits.
I do not feel that this has been done, that we have produced in Canada the dramatic and variety programs that could be produced with the use of Canadian people. I was just looking at the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for 1966-67 and I noticed the following item on page 14 with some interest. It is headed "Table 9-Origin of programs in hours on C.B.C. television networks-winter week". The origin of programs on the English language network in Canada was 40:48 and for the French network it was 60:35. There is, therefore, 20 per cent more Canadian content on the French network than on the English language network.
I know that so far as the French network is concerned this is the result of necessity. When that network started there was simply no French television network in the world, so they had to start from scratch to build their own programs. They did so successfully and are continuing to do so. I am suggesting that this can be done in Canada if we give direction to the broadcasters and if we give them the funds to do the job.
I also noticed in the same C.B.C. report for 1966-67 another very interesting graph on page 12. It is headed, "Graph 6-Audience
DEBATES	3179
Canadian Broadcasting Policy sizes in persons for some representative commercial programs on English language network television, in January, 1967". The graph is broken down into Canadian produced programs and foreign produced programs. I will admit right away that the leader is the Ed Sullivan program. However, not far behind it we find the hockey program. There are some other interesting comparisons. According to this graph, the Tommy Hunter show had about 3.25 million viewers. This, of course, is a Canadian program. Among the foreign produced programs, the Bob Hope show had about 2.25 million viewers. Quentin Durgens, M.P. had about 2.25 million viewers and Hogan's Heroes about 2 million viewers.
I merely mention these figures to show that Canadians will watch Canadian programs if they are good. I could add to the programs I have mentioned because there are many others. Of course, the success of the program, This Hour Has Seven Days, was quite fantastic. It outdrew everything but hockey. The point to which I come back is that Canadians want Canadian programs provided they are good programs. The charts reveal that they will watch these programs if their quality is good.
As I said earlier, I believe our task as members of parliament is to get the message across to the broadcasters, both public and private, that this is what we want done. We will have to have a very close look at the legislation to see if it contains anything specific by way of direction to the broadcasters or whether the job is delegated to the regulatory authority. Nevertheless, the job has to be done and Canadian programs provided for Canadians. This is important for many reasons. One could use a great deal of high-flown language about national unity and cultural identity. I suppose all of it would be true and there would be nothing to be ashamed of in that. However, almost every country in the western world takes care of its artists and we in Canada should do exactly the same thing.
If members generally agree with the point of view that more Canadian programs are required they should be prepared to pass the necessary legislation to implement this idea and to see that the necessary finances are advanced for the public part of the broadcasting system. The complaint of the C.B.C. is that they are forced to go more and more into commercial operations and very often the source of these funds comes from outside the country. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to make sure the broadcasting corporation has
October 17, 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy the necessary funds to do the kind of broadcasting we think it should do with Canadian talent. There is also a responsibility on the private broadcasters in this connection.
There is one section in the report which I think is quite significant and which has been largely overlooked by the people who comment on television. Some Canadian private broadcasters face what I believe is unfair competition from outside the country. They are facing competition from people who are not required to meet the regulations concerning Canadian broadcasting. These competitors are taking some of the advertising money which rightly should go to Canadian broadcasters so they can do the kind of job we want them to do. I think this is one area at which we need to look. This problem is not unlike the one which came up a few years ago when we were discussing the question of Canadian publications and the O'Leary report.
I simply conclude, Mr. Chairman, by repeating that one cannot argue with the general principles of broadcasting outlined by the minister in her brief remarks. One can also agree with many of the things said by the hon. member for Prince. I think we will all agree that Canadian broadcasting should be carried on more by Canadian talent than it has been and it will be our task as legislators to see that the broadcasters do this and that they have the means to do it. e (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, we are being asked today to take a stand on a resolution which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.
On reading this resolution on the order paper, I was somewhat surprised. I wondered what the government was doing in that field because every time we have asked the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) or her predecessors to account for certain doings of the C.B.C., the minister replied that the C.B.C. was a crown company and that the government should not intervene so as to respect freedom in public affairs.
Well, the introduction of this resolution gives us the hope that very shortly we will have at least something to say about the actions of this crown corporation which penetrates into every circle and every home.

Like my predecessors, I recognize that it is quite difficult to express a definite opinion on this resolution because it does not say much, and the Secretary of State did not give much information in introducing it. However, I am convinced that when the bill is before us, we will have a better idea of the government's objectives concerning this crown corporation.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I said that not only the members of our group in this corner of the house but many others have asked the government on various occasions for information about the activities of the C.B.C. Those requests resulted from protests made by responsible people in public life who were shocked sometimes by the kind of programming offered. In fact, in 1965 a group of 76,000 women protested against the immorality of the C.B.C., as reported in Le Devoir on March 25, 1965, and I quote:
Seventy-six thousand Canadian women have signed a petition which was handed over yesterday to the Prime Minister, requesting the C.B.C. to stop propagating "perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, narcotics, violence and crime."
Those women want the C.B.C. to "clean up" its television programs. The petition, which was signed by women from all the provinces, requests Parliament to "put a stop to the domination of a minority that takes advantage of television to propagate perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, narcotics, violence and crime."
At about the same time, the Knights of Columbus, meeting in convention, proposed a resolution that read partly as follows:
Resolved to protest strongly to the Secretary of State against the policy of the C.B.C. of allowing in certain programs communistic leftists, agnostics, terrorists and other promoters of discord to encourage class struggle, contempt for religious, civil and judicial authority.
Resolved to ask the federal government to set up an efficient censorship at the C.B.C. to eliminate at least from our government networks those programs glorifying crime, violence and immorality in all its forms.
Almost at the same time, Hon. Frederic Dorion, chief justice of the superior court of Quebec, stated:
Unfortunately, I am also aware that all these efforts to maintain order and protect morality are too often thwarted by certain publicity media such as television for instance which often put on programs so immoral and indecent that honest viewers, particularly fathers and mothers become indignant.
This communication medium which is now in almost every home, bringing in both word and picture, has become a need and an extraordinary medium of propaganda. For anyone heartily interested in protecting Christian principles which, whatever may be said, are still fortunately the framework of our society, it will be sufficient to view and listen to scenes such as we witness
October 17, 1967

several times a week to bring home the fact that television is often the best school of perversion and immorality, particularly when it is realized that it practically forces its way into our homes.
Is it proper, for instance to show that firearms may be used without any personal risk, to exalt the achievements of bandits by showing their skill, so often to have violence and fraud triumph albeit in the service of justice, to emphasize the indecency of unkempt boys and provocative and eccentric girls.
Mr. Chairman, those are a few of the protests put forward during 1965. Others have been made before and since and what has been done? It seems that nothing has been done by the C.B.C. to purge its programs which find their way in almost every Canadian home.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If C.B.C. directors are unable to correct the situation and restore order within their organization, I think that the minister's bill should include provisions designed to help them to effect a clean-up and, if necessary, to remove or reject any element in the pro-grammation likely to endanger morals.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. Secretary of State of Canada will provide in her bill clauses to protect the public from those programs.
I noticed that in her speech, the hon. Secretary of State mentioned that all Canadians have a right to broadcasting services. Mr. Chairman, if such is the intention of the Secretary of State, I hope that it will be carried out soon, because many Canadians in my region are still deprived of free broadcasting services like those enjoyed in urban areas.
This is the situation in the Chibougamau-Chapais and the Clova areas, which are also in my riding, as well as in other areas all over the province and the country. These are the areas I am speaking of.
We are told that the Chibougamau-Chapais area enjoys radio and television services. Yes, but the people have to pay exorbitant prices which are almost scandalous. These people, when they buy products announced on television, are already paying for their television set, and they are forced to pay $200 plus $8 per month plus the Quebec provincial tax for the right to enjoy television broadcasts.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is the duty of the government and the C.B.C. to serve areas which are considered as remote, to go into those districts in order to give them free of charge, as elsewhere in Canada, the broadcasting services to which they are entitled, inasmuch as private industry cannot

Canadian Broadcasting Policy economically do so. Moreover, this can be read in the Fuller report on broadcasting and those are the very words of the C.B.C. directors and I quote from page 124:
Whether Canadians live in remote or heavily populated areas the national system should serve them as adequately and equitably as possible.
Mr. Chairman I am told that if the C.B.C. is to serve all areas, it will have to be provided with adequate funds to extend the broadcasting network to those remote areas so that the people who live there may benefit from its services.
Mr. Chairman, these are the only comments I wish to make at this stage. I hope that the Secretary of State of Canada will keep them in mind and that she will get the co-operation of the Minister of Finance in allotting the necessary funds to the C.B.C., so that every section of the country may be treated fairly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin my remarks by raising the question of privilege in order to say a few words about a matter to which I addressed myself last week, but which I would like to take up again so that hon. members may clearly understand the motives behind our attitudes for the last week or two.
Two weeks ago, a number of members on this side of the house agreed to refuse to allow extra time, as stipulated in the regulations, to the members who address the house, except perhaps in the case of ministers and party leaders.
We feel that these regulations were drawn up by experienced people who knew where they were going; we think that if they decided upon a time limit of 7 minutes in some cases, and 20 or 30 minutes in others, they had their reasons. In our opinion, the members of this house are all experienced enough to time their remarks as they would if they were to speak, for instance, on radio or television. When extra time is granted some people encroach upon the time available; they take an additional five, ten or fifteen minutes, with the result that other members are deprived of an opportunity to express their views.
I am explaining once more this attitude, which is not only mine but also that of a group of members in this corner of the house, in order that it be well understood that there is nothing personal in this, and I hope that nobody will be offended if from now on we insist that the rules be strictly adhered to. If it is not suitable, then whoever is responsible for it should change it. If whoever is
October 17. 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy responsible decides to grant a minute or two more in cases where sentences or arguments are not complete, fine. In any event, there is a committee to take care of such things. But, so long as standing orders are what they are, we intend to demand that everyone complies with them.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the resolution, like all the other members I realize it would be pointless for me to dwell on it unduly. That is why I shall limit myself to one very brief remark for the simple reason that we do not have the bill before us. Moreover, before taking a personal stand on details -I know some members who have far more experience than any of us and who can speak of the technical aspects of the organization of the C.B.C. with much more authority-I shall make but one simple remark.
Under our present system, I feel that a situation exists which strikes me as illogical and contrary to a democratic principle that should be recognized. At election times, those candidates who can find election funds, God knows where, snow people under an avalanche of slogans and speeches, and monopolize the radio and television networks. If only they had practiced the art of oratory beforehand, it might not be so bad. But many of them go before the mike or the camera with so little preparation that I feel they do themselves more harm than good.
Well, Mr. Chairman, to my mind there are two abuses in this connection: in the first place, television time is misused; the people grow tired and are so fed up with all that political hanky-panky that most of the time, they switch off their television set whenever a speech is about to be delivered. Another thing also happens: some candidates, because of lack of funds or because they are unwilling to have their hands tied by accepting contributions from all and sundry, are deprived of the opportunity of presenting their views to the electorate.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that there is some discrimination here. And in my opinion, we should be concerned, when formulating the law that will from now on govern the C.B.C., with providing a little more justice in the allocation of time to the candidates from various parties.
It seems to me that some steps could easily be taken such as, for instance, putting a limit on the time which will be allotted. And, I think that everyone will be quite happy to see such a measure for a limitation of the time and also possibly some action

with regard to the cost of those programs. If we really believe in the democratic system, so far as I know, a man is not a better candidate or a better M.P. because he was fortunate enough to get large contributions from big companies or rich parties. I do not think that the fact he can buy 20 times as much broadcasting time as the candidate of a splinter party or an independent candidate will make him a better member.
Mr. Chairman, I think that there is some discrimination there about which, so far, we haven't objected very often. Is it perhaps because splinter parties accept more readily that kind of martyrdom forced upon them, that is to always play the part of the poor cousins? Is it perhaps because more powerful parties cannot take the heroic decision of restricting their electoral expenses? But I will go a bit further and suggest to the members of the old parties that it might be wise of them to do so, because I think they realize themselves that the eagerness with which subscribers contributed to electoral funds a few years ago is beginning to abate. They probably also realize that they will soon run into difficulties themselves if they do not decide to pass legislation limiting all bona fide candidates to the same amount of time, so that radio and television no longer be used to overhelm the people with electoral speeches or slogans which are not always intelligent.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, my comments on this resolution will be brief. We in the Social Credit party are pleased that the subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has finally come before the house. We welcome this resolution. It is a long time since we first began talking about the need to revise our broadcasting regulations and the whole field of broadcasting in Canada. Whatever the final form of the legislation may be it is encouraging to find this topic being dealt with, as it should be, here in the house.
It seems to me to be conveyed by the Fowler commission report that program content is of more consequence than administration, that any other aspect is merely housekeeping. Yet the feeling in the committee was that basically the problem today is one of housekeeping and that program content is of secondary importance. There is no
Ociober 17, 1967

question in my mind that regardless of programming housekeeping is of urgent importance in the field of broadcasting today.
For the last number of months, for example, the C.B.C. has been virtually without direction. It has a president who for all intents and purposes has resigned. At least one of the senior vice presidents has resigned. So far as over-all supervision is concerned, the C.B.C. has been without leadership for far too long. It is about time these vacancies were filled. However, I can sympathize with the government and the minister because I am sure it is not easy to find a man of the right type with the right background or, when such a man has been found, to convince him that he should take a position of this kind. Broadcasting has now become so great a problem that positions of responsibility within this field might well be considered as unattractive.
Nevertheless, the corporation remains the people's own broadcasting system, brought into being by parliament itself. It is one of our most important institutions in that it contributes to the development of a national sense of purpose and an understanding of what is meant by "Canadian". In addition, it has the responsibility of providing programs suitable for Canadians across the board. In these circumstances it is a good thing that we shall be dealing in due course with the government's recommendations in regard to broadcasting and that the necessary resolution is now before us.
On many occasions over a number of years I have been extremely critical of the C.B.C. This does not mean that we in this group are opposed to the existence of the corporation. Indeed, I regard the C.B.C. as an important and vital part of the Canadian scene. Canada is at best a difficult country to govern. It is not an easy task to supply television and radio broadcasting to all the various areas, geographic or social, of Canada. Certainly this task is beyond the scope of private broadcasting if only because of economic considerations. I do not imply, of course, that private broadcasting does not have a role to play. Indeed, I would say it has a role of equal importance. What is discouraging to me is that the C.B.C. is failing to meet the requirements of a national broadcasting system. It is not meeting these needs as it should.
This is partly our own fault. How many times when we have endeavoured to bring to the attention of the government certain problems affecting our constituents, or sought to
Canadian Broadcasting Policy obtain information from the minister responsible to this house, have we been told that it would never do for politics to play any part in the affairs of the C.B.C. and that it would therefore be impossible for the government to attend to the problems raised or to supply the information requested. On the other hand, when we address protests directly to the C.B.C. or require answers involving policy in any way, we are told by the corporation that these matters do not concern them and are the responsibility of the government. This is the frustrating position in which many members of the house have found themselves and for this reason I believe it is vitally important that there should be a complete change in the policy-making set-up and in the nature of the supervisory and administrative authority of the senior officers in order to place upon them a specific and definite area of responsibility for the policies followed in public broadcasting. A similar system should likewise be followed with regard to policies which govern private broadcasting.
It has been my privilege in recent years to have travelled in a number of countries in which there is a public broadcasting system and to observe, at least in an elementary way, the policies followed in those countries. I am thinking of the Scandinavian countries, of New Zealand, Great Britain, France and Germany. Of all those countries where I have seen a public broadcasting system at work, the one which has impressed me most is the one now functioning in West Germany. No doubt hon. members will recall the situation which existed in that country 30 years ago. Even then we were able to see that when direct interference with broadcasting was possible the democratic process became a secondary influence. Hitler, in his rise to power, found that though he could not gain the support he needed through direct political processes he could do so indirectly by taking over the broadcasting system. He was able to bypass his opposition in this way. Indeed, as I have said before, he really burned the Reichstag when he took over the German broadcasting system.
In Germany, having learned their lesson from what happened in the days of Hitler, they have set up a system which places responsibility directly upon the people themselves. This has been done by setting up an advisory council representative of all the democratic organizations in the country. The influence of this council extends not only to broadcasting such as emanates from the C.B.C. but to programs put on by private
October 17, 19S7

Canadian Broadcasting Policy broadcasting companies and completely commercial transmissions.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
To me the most interesting facet of the German system is that they have set up an advisory council upon which both provincial and federal legislatures are represented. In addition, the various democratic organizations such as home and school associations, civic clubs, universities, teachers' associations and so on have direct representation on the council, not by appointment by name but by appointment through office held. The advisory council was given the opportunity to advise the district executive officers of the national broadcasting corporation on matters of program content and on basic over-all policies. This has worked remarkably well. It has given the public an opportunity to have a say in programming direction in much of the broadcasting system. At the same time it has placed a direct responsibility on those who are appointed to manage the organization itself.
It is my hope that in the legislation which will follow this resolution there will be some provision for an organization of this type. Certainly it is not parliament which can in practice assume this responsibility. It may be all right to say that in theory it does, but it cannot really do so in practice simply because of the inadvisability on the one hand and the fear on the other hand of politics becoming directly involved in public broadcasting.
Another point of particular interest to me in respect of the German broadcasting situation is that there was no attempt through the public broadcasting system to set up a huge multimillion dollar organization so far as physical ownership of transmission facilities or production facilities is concerned. The whole aim and purpose of the national broadcasting system in Germany is to provide a certain type of programming and programming assistance without the acquisition and development of a huge physical empire. This is one of the fears I have in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because in terms of budget allowances for the C.B.C. we continually find in the estimates millions and millions of the taxpayers' dollars invested in buildings and in the setting up of an organization in the material sense rather than in the sense of facilitating a service, which I think is the basic responsibility of a broadcasting corporation.
There is another matter which should be considered in respect of private broadcasting. It has to do with the question of whether or

not public broadcasting should also be in the area of commercial sponsorship or whether this is an area which should be left completely to private commercial broadcasting. This is another aspect in respect of which a basic decision must be made concerning policy. Surely it is an extreme hardship on private broadcasting, which in my opinion is equally as important as the public aspect, when it must compete with a state subsidized organization such as the C.B.C. which does not have to relate its charges or costs to commercial income but can subsidize its commercial operations through the direct allotment it receives from the public purse. In Germany, for example, private broadcasting must earn its own income and pay its own way through private and commercial sources and public broadcasting is entirely the responsibility of the federal budget which supplies its allotment. It seems to me that we would be able to raise the standard of private broadcasting and relieve many of the problems it faces if we were to follow such a policy. Certainly it would be more equitable. I hope that this point will also be dealt with in the legislation.
Then there is the problem of the remote areas of Canada. This is one of the great geographical problems we face. From my contact with people who live in the remote areas, particularly the far northwest, it has become clear to me that there still is not adequate program coverage by the C.B.C. Certainly those people who choose to live and serve their country's needs in those areas should not, because of distance, be denied the same facilities and the same type of programming that is enjoyed by those who live in southern Canada. I also hope that the legislation will make adequate provision in this regard because this is a very urgent aspect of the broadcasting policy.
It would be possible to go on and on in dealing with the new legislation, but in closing I should just like to say that one of the moral responsibilities which I believe parliament has in respect of the people we represent is to make sure that we provide a basis for broadcasting in Canada which will not only meet the needs of our people but will do so in a more equitable and just manner. Perhaps this is a cliche which has been worn out by usage but I believe it is important. The Canadian people have every right to expect that the programs which come into their homes either through radio or television will be just as helpful as the water which flows from their taps. In setting up the administrative organization and in making provision for
October 17, 1967

the policies to cover broadcasting we must fulfil our responsibility to the Canadian people. After all, that includes ourselves as well.
I commend this resolution and certainly support it most completely because it is one of the most important topics with which we must deal in the remaining months of this session. So I say again that we look forward to the legislation and the debate which will follow.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Chairman, as one who
during the last session had the privilege and responsibility of chairing the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, I should like first to express my appreciation to the members of that committee who spent many long hours considering the government's white paper on broadcasting and hearing witnesses from many interested groups in Canada and also from abroad. Particularly I wish to express my thanks to the vice chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Montmagny L'lslet, and the other members of the steering committee, the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. These members contributed a great deal indeed to the report which was made to this house on March 21 last by the committee.
I hope that the recommendations contained in that report will be reflected in the bill which the Secretary of State will be revealing to us shortly. I want to thank her for her comments about the work of the committee and for her assurance that the bill will reflect some of the thinking of our committee. I believe the committee's report was generally well received and was constructive largely because members of the committee approached the subject with that sense of responsibility referred to by many hon. members today as being of the highest importance to Canada. In the committee the subject was approached in a non-partisan manner. I hope that approach will persist during consideration of the resolution and the bill to follow.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Committee members realized how vital broadcasting is to the fabric of our country. But may I say, Mr. Chairman, that the committee did not do its job as well as it might have, any more than our broadcasting system has performed over the past 35 years as well as it might have. The magnitude of the challenge to all of us dealing with this subject is of the same order as the importance of the subject to our country. It is a subject of such
Canadian Broadcasting Policy importance that it is probably not possible for this parliament to do complete justice to it, nor will it be possible for whatever structure we create to do the job as well as the need demands that it be done.
Our chief challenge in redrawing legislation for broadcasting is to achieve public control of our broadcasting system without government direction. This is a most difficult task, but it is one which was approached in the white paper in a way which received the general approval of the broadcasting committee and of commentators throughout the country.
The white paper looks to the establishment of an authority which will oversee all broadcasting in Canada. It goes without saying that it will be extremely important what instructions we give to that authority and what kind of personnel it will have. In this connection I think it is appropriate to refer to an editorial in the magazine, Actra, of September 6, 1966 which said that the B.B.G. should be:
-composed of individuals whose one concern will be to strengthen the political, social and economic fabric of Canada through the encouragement of Canadian programming; who will bow their heads to no commercial pressure; and who will not see as part of their function the need to protect and augment private profit at public expense or public bureaucracy for political expedience.
The new supervising authority will be extremely important to the functioning of our broadcasting system, but I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that the most important element in our broadcasting system is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which was established some 35 years ago to serve the public interest through broadcasting in Canada. The closing paragraph in our committee's report underlines this fact:
We express our conviction that the primacy of the public sector should be the paramount and continuing objective of the new legislation; that we must make more effective, and not undermine the main instrument by which "national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
Those last few words were a quotation from the speech of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, when he introduced the legislation establishing the C.B.C. He saw the C.B.C. as the main instrument by which "national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
It is clear that this objective set forth by a Conservative prime minister some 35 years ago should be one shared by all parties in the house today. It is an objective which might
October 17. 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy well be applied not only to our public broadcasting corporation but to our entire broadcasting system, both public and private elements.
I think the challenge before us as we approach this legislation was well stated in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of July 5, 1966, and I leave hon. members with this quotation from it:
Broadcasting is perhaps the most important single influence in our nation today: let us all give this new consideration of it the care it deserves.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to throw a bouquet to the minister, and since she has moved her seat somewhat it will be a little farther to toss it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Go ahead.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And since one seldom throws bouquets to ministers I suppose it is only fair to attach a piece of string to it so I may yank it back-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -should some surprise appear in the legislation. However, I do not think that will happen. I believe that the minister in her six-minute speech fairly placed before us what we may expect in the new broadcasting act. It was a speech that can be commended for the three or four major points it made. It was a speech that can be commended for its brevity, and I shall try to match it in that regard. On reflection, at this point I suppose I should make the throwing of the bouquet unconditional and so I cut the string and the bouquet is her's 100 per cent.
I should like to spell out the attitude of the official opposition with regard to possible future hearings by the broadcasting committee with respect to the new legislation. We do not feel that committee hearings will be necessary if there are no matters in the bill other than those contained in the white paper which the committee has already had a chance to consider and to hear witnesses testify in regard thereto. If there is no new material in the bill we do not think it necessary to hear old arguments repeated again. I think the standing committee did an outstanding job and spent a long time in assessing the points of view that were presented to it. But if there is something new that has not been considered by the committee we think it should at least have the right to consider the legislation and hear witnesses on the new points introduced.


[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The other point I should like to make concerns the five year financing plan suggested by the minister. I realize that this matter is to be dealt with in separate legislation, but there are four thoughts that come to mind in this connection. First, we on this side of the house will be very zealous to guard against massive control by government of the affairs of even a state-owned broadcasting corporation. Controls perhaps, but they must be controls properly exercised at arm's length. Second, we will be jealous about the measure of parliamentary control over a large amount of public spending. Third, we will be very cautious in our approach to how the money is doled out. One might ask, as the hon. member for Peace Kiver did behind the curtain a few minutes ago, and I hope I deliver the line as successfully as he did: How many years would it take the C.B.C. to spend a five year grant?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you. Fourth, the government's record in the field of inflation would probably make any five year system of grants unrealizable and the grants program would have to be reviewed from time to time during that period.
The minister made one point that I think deserves a brief comment. I refer to the suggestion that we set forth in statutory form the objectives of Canadianism. I think the obvious failure of broadcasting legislation in the past has been due to the fact that while we in the House of Commons and in the other place have expressed our sentiments about a Canadian system, we have not been able to translate those sentiments into effective legislation. I believe we must be pretty specific in this broadcasting legislation to ensure that the objectives of Canadianism are reached.
As one artist wrote me this morning, "Under our current set-up we are really the fifty-first American state." I think the point of view of that Halifax lady is well expressed. In the entertainment field, as noted by previous speakers, there is a feeling among the actors' groups that they do not enjoy the access to broadcasting that other Canadians enjoy, for example, in the field of sports, public affairs broadcasts and the like. It would be a pity if our good, Canadian artistic talent had to go to the United States or abroad to express itself. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly in favour of statutory direction toward obtaining the Canadianism that we all want.
October 17. 1967


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I do not for
a moment suppose that my remarks on the resolution before us will change the bill which will be introduced shortly for first reading. However, I want to express them in this house so that, during the debate on this piece of legislation, if an amendment is moved, we may discuss it seriously.
It would be easy for me to join the protests raised throughout Canada, especially in recent months, on the manner in which the board of broadcast governors discharged their administrative duties and also on the quality and choice of programs on our national networks, either television or radio.
At the present time, I must admit that I find a malicious pleasure in the way some so-called public affairs, cultural, educational or entertainment programs are staged by a small group of so-called intellectuals or artists- quite often of questionable taste-who have no other concern but to promote their own popularity or their personal views. I must also say that the behaviour of those individuals amuses more than it irritates me and that the escalation of their stupidity is only equal, quite often, to the complacency shown towards them by the officials of the networks and even by parliament, we must admit, who is responsible to the people for public expenditures.
This new legislation will help rectify, I hope, some gross abuses and meet our present and future needs.
However, Mr. Chairman, let me express a personal opinion about the opportunity of encouraging private enterprise to develop a network and to complete our T.V. and radio network so that we may set up a greater number of French stations in areas where the English language prevails and English stations in areas where the French language prevails.
That contribution from the private sector would of course be an excellent way to promote the French and English cultures in our country and, therefore, better understanding between all Canadians.
At the present time, Mr. Chairman, there are not enough people in some areas to set up French or English television and radio stations. Therefore, if the government went into partnership with those individuals or offered to share the cost of setting up those radio and television stations, first the private sector would make that important contribution which, one knows, is a very good thing,
Canadian Broadcasting Policy and then, it would be possible to increase the number of television or radio stations.
There would not only be government participation but also the possibility of sharing in the operating profits of these television and radio stations and that is where the interesting part of the matter comes up.
It would also be appropriate, I think, that the government eventually withdraw from this joint operation with private enterprise because, in my personal view, it would be beneficial if the government were to leave as much as possible the administration and programming of the various radio and television stations, to private enterprise, while sharing administrative responsibility or having a joint administration board as is the case in the great government television and radio networks of certain countries.
Mr. Chairman, that is my suggestion. It might then be advisable, if people took up the offer, to buy back the station over a certain period or, at least, of having a first option to buy if the government were to decide to leave the ownership of such stations to private enterprise.
However, if two cultures must be disseminated throughout the entire country Mr. Chairman, a new element will necessarily have to be brought into this development and it can be achieved through private enterprise. I hope that the legislation which will be brought down will provide for the setting up of such a system.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Chairman, let me say, if you will permit, that after 25 years of broadcasting experience this debate reminds me of a poem which seems appropriate to this occasion as it has been for the whole 25 year period so far as broadcasting is concerned. I cite these lines by Omar Khayyam:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door where in I went.
When I recall my experiences in the broadcasting field it seems to me that much of what has been said this afternoon has been said many times before and I suspect will be said on a great many occasions in the future. The legislation that we are to see introduced today has been a long time in coming, and I commend the minister for resisting the pressures of recent months and, indeed, even of years, to speed up the introduction of the legislation
3188	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Policy because I hope that the document we will see unveiled at the end of the debate on the resolution will be a comprehensive effort to prevent the kind of merry-go-round in which we have been involved for so long.
This afternoon we have heard references by the minister and others to the fact that this legislation has been two years in planning. Actually it goes back even farther than that, certainly to 1963, and from that time to this day there has been an almost continuous dialogue on how we should try to solve some of these problems.
I confess, without having seen the legislation, that I am not wildly enthusiastic about its potentialities to solve the problems of this complex medium. As I have said on previous occasions, and it is appropriate again today, you cannot legislate good broadcasting. In fact I think that the most that legislation can do in the broadcasting field is to prevent the worst from happening. I have seen no evidence over the years that legislation can bring out the best. So while I recognize the necessity for legislation and while I express the hope that it will be comprehensive, I do not think any of us in this chamber or in the country should be in any way, shape or form, enthusiastic about it and assume that once it is passed all of the problems will go away, because that is simply not going to be the case.
One of the reasons for this had its beginnings as far back as 1957, almost ten years ago to the day, when at Mount Allison University I met the then minister of national revenue, a gentleman for whom I as well as many others in this chamber had great respect, the late hon. Mr. Nowlan. He was then planning the legislation under which we are now operating. We spent a great deal of time during that meeting trying to cope with many of the matters which I have heard brought up again this afternoon. Indeed, there is a striking similarity between the references that have been made here and the generally conscientious efforts that were being made ten years ago to solve the same kind of problems.
The criticisms that have developed over the past ten years, the controversies and the difficulties that have surrounded every phase of broadcasting, really cannot be laid at the door of the legislation which was brought in in 1957 or 1958; I do not recall exactly when it was promulgated. There were inadequacies in that act, as I am sure there will be in this one. But the real culprit, if that is what one can call it, has been the fantastic growth in broadcasting over the past decade and also an

DEBATES	October 17, 1967
incredible and remarkable change in public attitudes. I think that both of these factors have to be considered together if we are to have any kind of proper perspective toward the task we are now undertaking.
Even the most expert person of ten years ago could not possibly have forecast what has since developed in television from a purely technical point of view. For example, I recall many a seminar in those days at which those farsighted people who forecast satellite transmission and coast to coast microwave networks, two of which we have today, were laughed at. The very concept and the very idea, putting aside for the moment political or philosophical considerations, of two networks, one public and one private, spanning this country was at that time and for many years after 1957 declared to be an absolutely unreal conception. We can see how fast things have gone ahead in that decade. This in itself has helped to pace the legislation.
The other thing that has happened is the evolvement of tremendous change in social and public attitudes. As a broadcaster I can recall the time when less than ten years ago I had a most serious discussion with the Board of Broadcast Governors on the whole question of obscenity and the propriety of certain types of language on television. I recall that we had to deliberately "beep out", to use an expression familiar in the trade, a word which I am not sure is parliamentary even to this day, a simple "damn" which was used in a statement made by someone in a film. A few weeks ago I witnessed on a private station, so this is not a criticism of the C.B.C. and indeed I am not sure if it is a criticism at all, a news report which many hon. members perhaps saw. It had to do with a most unfortunate incident involving the adoption of children. In the scene which was shown in this new cinema verite technique for the coverage of an event the most remarkable obscenities were used by all concerned and particularly by some of the principals to this action. While, as I say, I am not at the moment commenting on the propriety or otherwise, I am pointing out the vast changes that have taken place. I am told there were criticisms but that by and large the audience took it in its stride.
I have spoken of this incident because today I do not propose, and indeed I am not in a position to because I have not seen the legislation, to deal with the specifics of broadcasting problems, but I do want to say something which some hon. members will know I have said on many previous occasions. The
October 17, 1967

fact is that we who are trying to devise legislation for broadcasting and those others who are trying to devise policies for broadcasting enterprises, whether they be public or private, are somewhat similar to the sorcerer's apprentice in that we are dealing with forces which we do not really understand.
I was interested in a comment made by one hon. member who spoke earlier today about the effects of television. There is a general assumption on the part of too many of us that we understand the effects of television and that we have a fairly good comprehension of its impact on the Canadian society or, for that matter, on world society. In my view we know virtually nothing about it.
Certainly it is obvious today, and this is a generalization that scarcely needs amplification, that the world is in a troubled state. Within our own country we can see the development of tensions not only between French and English speaking citizens but between various groups within our society, tensions of a size and import that we would not have thought possible in the decade to which I have referred. I suggest that despite the massive communications network, both public and private, that we have developed across this country, and the accumulation of individual stations, broadcasting today has actually done very little to solve the basic and really fundamental problems of our time despite what we have said to the contrary and the platitudes that we utter in this connection. In point of fact, if one wished to make the proposition that broadcasting far from helping up till now has actually contributed to tensions and has generated far reaching controversies, it would be possible to defend it. I suspect it is also contributing in a large measure to the abnormal amount of public unrest which we are witnessing on all sides today. Let me hasten to add-
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: By all means.


Robert William Prittie: What the hon. member has just said about broadcasting perhaps continuing the tensions and problems would apply, would it not, to the press or any other reporting media?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course; I was about to add that there is no question about an accumulation of media being involved. This is the point I was about to make. There is no

Canadian Broadcasting Policy doubt in my mind that radio and television broadcasting have added a very specific new dimension to the media. Quite definitely, there is a difference even between radio broadcasting and television broadcasting.
I am reminded here of an incident in which perhaps hon. members may be interested. They may have had the same experience themselves and I think it serves to emphasize my conviction of the need for more far reaching research. During the debate on the Middle East crisis in the month of June of this year it so happened that during the two hour period of that debate I was listening to the radio in my automobile. Then I transferred from my automobile to my home where my wife was watching the same debate on television. The same characters, the same personalities were involved in this over-all coverage. However, the instant I saw on television the characters involved in the debate my impressions and attitude were quite specifically different from those I had at least started to formulate as I listened to radio. That is only a small point. However, the point I am making is that possibly until such time as we have a great deal more research completed than we have at the present time, and I am not speaking of nose counting which is a kind of cynical disregard of many aspects of broadcasting but perhaps a necessary tool, until we have some totally responsible, non-governmental research we are really only coming to conclusions based on quite ordinary reactions rather than on what the public requires. I say this as an experienced broadcaster, and such research may be university centred or it may be some approach to broadcasting for a specific purpose.
I suggest that this is a very serious matter. I suggest that many of our attitudes, for example, with regard to the treatment of the racial problem in the United States, with regard to foreign affairs involving Viet Nam and other countries, are being shaped against the United States. We are being influenced by television which, I repeat, we do not really understand and therefore we are not able to assess in proper proportion.
Lest anybody should say for a moment that I am proposing that broadcasting ought to be a bland kind of milk toast diet, that we ought not to disturb people, let me say I totally agree with the hon. member for Prince who said that we have to disturb and stir up people. I am all for that. In addition, I am for a maximum amount of experimentation in broadcasting. I think it is nonsensical for us to have the kind of bureaucratic organization
October 17, 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy in the C.B.C. which sets down hard and fast rules under which nobody can experiment with anything. This is a total denial of creative freedom. If we are going to have a viable broadcasting system in this country there must be creative freedom. There are two things which go together here. This is one of the great difficulties that is present today and, incidentally, not only present within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but within any other organization which has strong management at the top in order that reasonable lines are maintained, in order that budgetary controls are effective, in order that there is some basic character of organization between the group at the top on the one hand and the creative element on the other. What we need, it seems to me, is some kind of personnel management which could give the maximum kind of freedom and at the same time have the respect of the creative people. In this way we may well achieve a clearly defined objective.
If there is a moment left I want to say something about another matter which undoubtedly will be discussed at great length during the debate on the bill. There have been a number of references to it. We frequently hear talk about the need for encouraging Canadian talent. I am quite satisfied that Canadian talent has every bit as much right to support and encouragement in the form of grants or subsidies, if you like, or any kind of help we can give them as has any other group in our society. It is ridiculous to suggest that we have a responsibility, for example, to 3,500 steel workers in Sydney and not to other groups. Obviously we do have a responsibility to the steel workers and I will give them my total support. As a Newfoundlander may I say they have my complete sympathy.
However, it is ridiculous for this house to spend a full day, and perhaps many more, questioning how we can help 3,500 steel workers and not recognize the 3,000 or 4,000 creative people who have the same right to our consideration as the steel workers. I am completely in agreement with the necessity, I may say, of maintaining our creative talent. While television undoubtedly can be and broadcasting as a whole undoubtedly is a great source, a great tool for our creative talent, I appeal to the minister to think perhaps in terms of a pool of creative talent in this country. She may well be thinking in these terms. I know of no country in the world, including the United States, with a single medium or a single type of outlet

which provides the maximum amount of opportunity for artists and writers. People do not write for or perform for one medium. There is overlapping. We need something which will give these people the kind of recognition and the kind of standard of living to which they are entitled. I do say that we will not really accomplish our objective if we limit the outlets for talent to television. Not even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, supported by the most generous parliament imaginable, could do that job.
It costs anywhere from $80,000 to $150,000 to produce a single hour of film. Some programs are less expensive, but the type of thing we need today is in that range. Even the C.B.C. with all its resources, even if it took something out of hardware and management or bureacracy and put it into programming where it ought to be, would not be able to do the job. Only through a combination of the National Film Board, the C.B.C. and the whole range of arts centres we have across the country, directed by a principal, not necessarily a cultural czar, who gives people complete freedom, can we have full employment for our creative talent. Only in this way can it be organized fruitfully.
It is pointless to make broadcasting and television the whipping boy, whether it be public or private. When we get into a discussion of the bill we will find there are many more aspects to the bill than the encouragement of talent. We are going to have to face such questions as, do we opt for more public affairs or for more entertainment? Do we opt for more regional programs or national programs? All of these things enter into the complexity of this problem, and radio broadcasting alone cannot solve it even if it has the best will in the world.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The approach I am suggesting can, I believe, achieve our goal. We have a germ of an idea here. Let us not be so afraid of people being in charge of everything, whether they are called czars or have some other label. We have to maintain the arts and the creative talent of our people or I am afraid we will not achieve our objective. I do not want to leave the impression that I am pessimistic. I believe in broadcasting. I think we are quite unfair sometimes when we fail to recognize the contribution it has already made. I believe it is going to make an even greater contribution in the future. I think that in the last analysis it is not going to be directed by legislation or controlled by parliament in the broad sense of these words. The contribution
October 17, 1967

will come from a growing awareness on the part of an important media and those providing the programming that the task is worth while. If in fact there is this co-operation about which I have spoken, then this can be achieved.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part briefly in this discussion I want to say that in my opinion at least the statement made by the Secretary of State in introducing this resolution was one of the most unrevealing that I have yet heard in the house. As a matter of fact, when she had finished I heard some members behind the curtain say they really thought they knew more about the government's intentions before she spoke than when she had finished. At one point I almost thought that I was listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs rather than the Secretary of State.
I imagine that the intention of the minister and the government at this stage is to spend as little time as possible on the resolution and to pass on to the meat of the bill so we can see the business with which we are going to deal. In this regard I think that our group will be as ready as anybody to get to the meat, though we may not be quite as ready to leave it. In our opinion, if the very important legislation that is going to come before us is not going to be referred to the broadcasting committee, we would think it reasonable to spend at least two weeks discussing the bill in detail clause by clause in order to enable interested and affected groups to make further representations to those dealing with this legislation.
I have two or three general observations I wish to make on the general subject of broadcasting. It seems to me that all broadcasting is a matter of public concern. The public pays for it either through parliamentary grants or through that part of the consumer dollar that produces advertising revenue for the broadcasting systems. All radio frequencies and television channels are public property, and surely the public is entitled to exercise control over them. Further, broadcasting is of essential concern to Canadians because of its very key nature in our communications media. Communications are as vital to us as Canadians as national defence. Further, I think our experience of the structure of broadcasting in Canada indicates that the public can best protect and advance its interest in this field by allowing both public and private systems of radio and television to exist, both of these systems ultimately being responsible to the public through an over-all

Canadian Broadcasting Policy public agency such as the Board of Broadcast Governors.
In connection with the public sector may I say I am one of those who are public enterprisers and I am a great admirer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But I do not think it is evidence of friendship to the C.B.C. to ignore some of its weaknesses or shortcomings. Despite criticisms of cost and over-management and sometimes criticisms of departure from good taste which have been made against it, I think the C.B.C. has provided a national broadcasting service in a very praiseworthy manner and for a minimal per capita cost. The last figure I saw indicated that the cost was less than one cent per day per Canadian. When we consider the vastness of its business, the four networks that it operates and the variety of our people, I believe that its record is a very good one.
It was said by the most recent commission which examined the broadcasting system in Canada, with particular reference to the C.B.C., that the important thing, the thing that mattered in broadcasting, was production and anything else was housekeeping. Some wits have since then pointed out that exactly the opposite point of view should be the finding of the commission on the status of women, that that commission should report that all that matters is housekeeping and anything else is production. However, that may be, I think many members would go along with what I sense is the aim of the minister regarding the extension of the term of financing to a longer period than is now enjoyed by the corporation if certain requirements are met. This group will be very much concerned to check on the performance of the people involved in producing a formula that will extend the financing period of the C.B.C. to, say, five years.
I want to say a few words about the private sector of broadcasting. It seems to me that the record of the private stations in basically placing their interests and the interests of their shareholders first and those of the public last has been repeatedly criticized by investigating bodies over the last ten years. The public's airwaves are being used under licence by private profit-making concerns, and it is only necessary to listen to the average private radio station in particular or to watch some of the private television programs that are screened in this country to realize that their orientation is such that they just might as well be broadcasting in the United States. Their shortcomings in program content are as
October 17. 1967

Canadian Broadcasting Policy obvious as their high volume of commercialization. In my opinion we should exercise care when renewing licences for private broadcasting stations. We should take the position that licences will be renewed on the basis that private stations undertake to give a much improved program service, and this undertaking should be reviewed from time to time by the B.B.G.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my point of view that the matters which are coming before us are of such importance that unless the proposed legislation is submitted to the standing committee on broadcasting for consideration we should at least have a two week period in this chamber to discuss these proposals in detail.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say on this resolution. As many members have said before me, there has been considerable investigation into broadcasting in recent years through the Fowler commission, the white paper and the study of the subject by the parliamentary committee. However, I want to make one point and I want to make it very clearly.
I think we must understand that there has been much dissatisfaction in recent years with the C.B.C., with its manner of operating and with its programming. This dissatisfaction has often led to criticism of the C.B.C. itself, even to the extent, I would say, that many Canadians want to rid themselves of it. Many constituents have written to me and suggested that if a referendum were held on whether we should retain the C.B.C. or get rid of it there would be a strong vote in favour of getting rid of it. The ordinary citizen sees large sums of tax money being put into the C.B.C. and many of them see very little return.
I would even go further and say that this dissatisfaction is felt not only by the viewers but also by the employees of the C.B.C. and the artistic talent engaged. For example, we have the recent action of the members of ACTRA who have written to us expressing dissatisfaction with the policy of the C.B.C. in connection with the use of creative talent. Many others have been critical of the lack of direction and the uncertain management of the C.B.C. There is no doubt, as other hon. members have pointed out, that in recent years we have lost a lot of top broadcasting talent.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If there has been criticism of the operation and application of the principle on which the

C.B.C. was founded I think that there is, nevertheless, approval of that principle. When I speak of the principle on which the C.B.C. was founded I mean that we need a public broadcasting network in Canada which will reach into all the far areas of the country, present Canadian events, Canadian opinion, Canadian talent, and strive to bring Canadians into touch with each other. This is extremely important in this large, sparsely populated country. We need a broadcasting system which will combat the strong communication forces from our neighbour to the south, the United States.
I think there is agreement on the general principle of a public broadcasting system. Without the C.B.C., no doubt we should be far more submerged than we are now by Americanism. But as I said, Mr. Chairman, while we support this principle we do not support the manner in which the principle has often been put into operation. Very often its purposes, which I have set out, have been twisted and frustrated by those intent on using the C.B.C. to express their own personal politics, personal morals or personal philosophies. Many people watching the C.B.C. feel that it has become the principal sounding-board of anarchy, sensationalism, separatism, socialism and fascism. This is not to say that such opinions should not be heard, but they should be heard in proportion to their importance in the community. As it is now one gets the impression that these are the only opinions we hear.
As an example, in Montreal last Saturday evening 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, all separatists. It seems to me that if the C.B.C. is to present properly all the opinions in this constitutional debate it should present interviews with some who have opposing opinions. Not only separatists, who are continually putting forward their opinions, should be interviewed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Yet very little is heard from the opposing side. Again, I have received many complaints from French speaking constituents who have telephoned me, written to me and told me that they are fed up with seeing Pierre Bourgault on television. Here is a man who leads a party which has elected no candidates-he has no seat-a party which got less than 5 per cent of the vote, and yet this man is given more time than the leaders
Ociober 17, 1967

of the government and opposition parties which were elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: I have referred to the French network but the same criticism can also be made of the English network. Often the opinions presented on the English network are negative, anarchist and sensational, with little opportunity given for replies from those holding opposing opinions.
When these problems have been raised in the house the minister has replied that it is not in order for the government to interfere. Well, Mr. Chairman, while I agree that it is dangerous to allow the C.B.C. to become the government's propaganda machine, to become the propaganda machine of the party in power, nevertheless something must be done to prevent others at a lower level from making the corporation their propaganda machine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: There is no doubt that the C.B.C. is being made the propaganda machine of those destructive elements which are doing their utmost to destroy this country. As I say, this is a public network which is being supported by the money of people from all across Canada. Yet too often those people to whom I have referred are using the Canadian taxpayers' money to destroy the country and other, contrary opinions are not being presented.
Someone, whether it is the government or the C.B.C. administration, must see to it that the corporation fulfils the purposes for which it was founded. Those purposes must not be twisted or frustrated. This does not mean that only the opinions of the government or the party in power are to be put forward. All opinions ought to be put forward. Only in that way can the C.B.C. achieve its purposes of bringing about national unity and an exchange of opinion, as well as presenting Canadian contributions. This must be done, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who is able to express himself so much more clearly than I can, said. It must also be done in a way that will maintain artistic freedom. This is always a problem in a democratic society, but it is important to maintain order and direction while at the same time permitting freedom.
It has been mentioned that one of the main purposes of the legislation is to determine the manner of allocating airwaves between private and public stations. This, I believe, is
Canadian Broadcasting Policy extremely important because it is necessary in a democratic system to have competing media presenting many different opinions to the public. This is important, as I say, and I hope there will be something in the legislation with respect to this matter. I also hope that the legislation provides for a bold expansion of the French and English networks. It is imperative for French language television to be expanded in those parts of Canada where there are sufficient numbers of French speaking Canadians. The same holds true for the English networks.
In conclusion I wish to repeat what I said at the beginning. While most Canadians support the principle of public broadcasting, they have not been happy in recent years with much that has been presented. They have not been happy with the administration of the principle. Let us hope that the legislation to be introduced this afternoon or this evening will go a long way to correcting these grievances.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, at the resolution stage, I simply want to say a few words in order to let the house know the general opinion of the people of my riding and to express perhaps some personal views on the urgency of that resolution and the ensuing bill designed to rectify the situation which prevails at the present time, at least in my area, where most people are dissatisfied with the way our news media and, in particular, our national network carry out the task assigned to them.
Of course, we could take the time to give some names, but the list would be too long, and I do not think that it is the purpose, because what is done is done. I think that some serious problems should be considered before introducing this bill, and the main one, in my opinion, deals with the definition of what may be the public interest in the general sense. When one reads the report on broadcasting, one does not find any definition of public interest in the general sense, especially with regard to the national network.
Obviously, the C.B.C. is faced with a financial problem, and a problem of authority. The financial one can, up to a point, hamper the full development of programming, which must be a source of personal enrichment far more than mere entertainment. Admittedly, the C.B.C. has lost many listeners to private stations, because it has not fulfilled its duty. It is not a matter of competing on a percentage basis, but it must be recognized that,
31g4	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Policy in broadcasting as in other spheres of activity, when a government does not comply with the wishes of the people, it is defeated; similarly, when the head of an undertaking does not meet the needs, the wishes of his customers, he is doomed to failure. The role of the C.B.C. is not to tell the pepole what to do but rather to inform them as objectively as possible.
In this respect, may I submit respectfully that, to my mind, the public network has, to a large extent, unfortunately failed in the task assigned to it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I simply wish at this point to quote a statement made last month by someone whose views on the information media I highly respect, Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon. I quote.
But before laying down a rule of conduct for private stations, above all it will be necessary that parliament or the B.B.G. (if such authority is vested in it) manage to inform the C.B.C. that the survival of our country, among other things, is in the public interest.
Mr, Chairman, I endorse that statement. I do not intend to comment on what is going on within the state-owned network, but in my opinion, a change in leadership and new instructions are imperative. In short, those responsible for programming and public affairs should start by reading the foundation chart of the C.B.C., whose prime object is to ensure the development of the Canadian nation as a whole. In my opinion, that has not been done, and attempts are generally made to put a stop to our growth.
The other day, Mr. Chairman-and this is significant of what public opinion can be- during a meeting I attended, everyone was critical and voiced his fear, his concern, and especially stated that life in Canada must, in general, have something better to offer than programs where former convicts are confronted with representatives of the clergy, judges and policemen.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know really what could be done in that field, but there must be some way to solve the problem. It is not a question of setting up some authority which will curb healthy aspirations, but since the main purpose of the crown corporation is to guide thinking, the latter should be directed along the same lines as the objectives of the corporation which are primarily to give information with the greatest amount of objectivity and not to control information and use it as an instrument of propaganda,
[Mr. Laflamme.)
DEBATES	October 17. 1967
which, I think, is the general reproach that could be made.
I imagine that when the bill is introduced in the house we will be able to see better whether the government or parliament intends to give new directives to our crown corporation, which has played an essential role and must continue to do so, without being infiltrated by any group.
Moreover, like my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), I will say that the corporation must not be French and English and French only where there are French Canadians. It must be French from Vancouver to Halifax because how can a French-speaking Canadian who spends a few days in an essentially English community feel at home if he cannot even hear a program or the news in his own language on radio or television?
I think that is a duty, a bounden duty of the central government, because then the public corporation will play the prominent part devolved upon it and which is defined in section 1 of its charter; to promote Canadian nationalism, Canadian duality or at least Canadian identity, which must be the prime objective of the national network. I hope that the bill which will be introduced will enable us to see to it that our national corporation plays this role.


Mr. Orlikow:: Six o'clock.


An hon. Member:: No.


David Orlikow: I thought I might call it six o'clock but I heard somebody say "No" so I suppose I should begin.
Like my hon. friend from New Westminster I thought that the statement the Secretary of State made in introducing this resolution was an amazing one. Here we have legislation which has been promised and discussed for at least two years, legislation of tremendous importance in this field; yet I think I know less about the essential principles which the bill will contain than I thought I knew when the day began.
It is true the minister said the things which I suppose government spokesmen and representatives of every responsible party have said about broadcasting and television. She made the same kind of speech as Mr. Bennett made 30 or 40 years ago.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If you would sit down you would see the bill in two minutes.
October 17, 1967


David Orlikow: I am not going to do that because I have some thoughts about what ought to be contained in the bill and about what the course of broadcasting should be. It is not my fault that the hon. lady took as long as she did to bring in this legislation and I do not think that the 20 minutes during which I intend to speak on the resolution will really affect the introduction of the bill or the course of the debate.
There are, I believe, a number of questions which have to be faced. We might have faced them today had the minister given us an indication of the basic principles to be embodied in the bill. What, for example, will be the role of the Board of Broadcast Governors or whatever agency is to be made responsible for setting the rules of broadcasting? I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence available to me that in the past the board has not been given the authority required to do its job. What authority will be contained in the new legislation to assist the board in its task? Again, what will be the relationship between the Board of Broadcast Governors and the C.B.C.? Will the C.B.C. be able to continue to operate as a virtually independent body, as seems to have been the case up to now, ignoring the directions or orders of the Board of Broadcast Governors? Will the B.B.G. be authorized to tell the private broadcasting stations that they must live up to their commitments?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Before
adjourning the business of this committee, could I be allowed to indicate the subject matter of the questions to be considered tonight on the adjournment motion.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand): Duties of the Company of Young Canadians; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave): Air Transport- Canadian Pacific Airlines and the Atlantic provinces; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather):	Confederation-
Opinion poll in Quebec.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Before you see the clock, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the hon. member has in mind concluding his remarks in a relatively short time? If he does, would it be the wish of the house that he be permitted to conclude them now?


David Orlikow: I expect to take the 20 minutes which the rules permit me to take, just as other hon. members have done.
27053-202a
Canadian Broadcasting Policy


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I suggest, since I believe all hon. members are anxious to see the resolution adopted, that we allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North to conclude and then give the bill first reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that we do not see the clock and hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North?


Some hon. Members:: 
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the minister said, and I think the hon. member for Prince repeated, that broadcasting is important and that it is something which touches every Canadian. Broadcasting, and certainly television, can and should be an important factor in maintaining and building the Canadian identity. This is an easy thing to say. It is a much more difficult thing to put into practice. The developments in television and the tremendous cost of television have made the problem much greater.
I should like to join with other members in paying tribute to the tremendous job which the C.B.C. has done over the years. I suppose it is fair to say there is hardly a city in Canada which would have a symphony orchestra today were it not for the great support which serious musicians from all parts of Canada have received from the C.B.C. The C.B.C. hired live musical talent when the private radio stations simply ignored anything but records, and records of not a very high calibre.
In a similar way C.B.C. radio in particular and C.B.C. television to a lesser degree have been responsible for the promotion and development of Canadian drama. We have produced in Canada a large number of highly competent, highly skilled and technically trained actors, writers, producers and directors. So successful have we been that many of these persons have moved from Canada to much more profitable parts of the world for this kind of talent, such as New York, Los Angeles and London. I do not have sufficient time to put on the record all the names or even a small fraction of the names of the people who have left. Also I do not for a moment suggest that we ought to do anything to stop them leaving. I am happy to see Canadians succeed in the field of drama and entertainment in the United States and in Great Britain. Most of the people who leave do not do so because they would not prefer to stay in Canada but simply because the C.B.C.,
3198	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Policy which for so many years provided an opportunity to them to carry on their work in Canada, is doing less and less of this kind of programming.
I disagree completely with people such as Dennis Braithwaite, the television commentator for the Toronto Globe and Mail, who usually take the view that the reason people leave is that we do not have the ability in Canada to do the kind of programming which people like. There is no truth in that statement. The fact is that Canadian writers, producers, directors and actors are a success today in the most competitive markets in the world. They are a success in New York and they are a success in Hollywood and London.
I might mention a few names. There are people like Lloyd Bochner, John Collicos, Lome Greene, Douglas Campbell and Don Franks, all of whom were given their start in Canada and all of whom I am certain would be happy to come back to Canada if not full time at least part time if the C.B.C. were doing the kind of work it previously did. All these people have left because this kind of programming is not being done in Canada.
I am a supporter of the C.B.C. and a member of parliament who is prepared to go to my constituents and say that we must support the C.B.C. with more money so that it can do the kind of work it has done over the years. I am not, however, prepared to go to my constituents and ask for more money so that each year the C.B.C. can rebroadcast more United States commercial programs. I believe that this type of program is sold to Canadian private stations not for the price the C.B.C. pays but for whatever can be got. Whatever amount is obtained in Canada is gravy because the program has been produced, paid for and shown in the United States. There is no need for the C.B.C. to bring this type of program to the Canadian people. I am not suggesting that if the C.B.C. is to have a full time television service it does not need to have this kind of programming, but I disagree completely that the prime hours should be virtually completely dominated by United States productions with the result that more and more Canadian artists, writers and producers are finding it impossible to continue their work in Canada.
Recently I had the opportunity to read a telegram which was sent to the Prime Minister. It was signed by some of the most prominent and successful writers in Canadian television today. They urged the Prime Minister to see that Canadian television provides an opportunity for Canadian writers to

DEBATES	October 17, 1967
remain in Canada. As I have already said, to a large extent our Canadian actors and artists have already left. It is our responsibility to see that the C.B.C. does the kind of programming it did for many years. In my opinion it has been doing less and less. Perhaps part of the reason for this is that the C.B.C. has not been receiving sufficient money. This is something which parliament must look into. It may be that part of the reason is the failure to bring forward legislation defining the responsibility and the scope of the jobs the C.B.C. must do. Perhaps this has made it difficult if not impossible for the C.B.C. to obtain the top management personnel required.
I do not believe that in recent years the management of the C.B.C. has been as good as it was in earlier years. I am one who believes that the C.B.C. has a surplus of supervisory staff. I believe also that over the years a bureaucracy has grown up. Whoever takes on the job will have to look at the bureaucracy and see that more of the C.B.C. effort is directed to the actual production of programming rather than to supervision as is the case now.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Having said this about the C.B.C., it seems to me that the legislation which we will be discussing must give to the regulatory authority, the Board of Broadcast Governors, the kind of authority which will enable it to see that the private stations do the job they are required to do and the job they promised to do when they obtained their licences to operate television stations, licences which an expert in Great Britain said were licences to print money. If one looks at the Financial Post of September 16, 1967, one can see just what that expert meant when he said that broadcasting was a licence to print money. In that issue the newspaper gives some examples of what has happened to the price of the shares of some companies involved in broadcasting. The shares of Western Broadcasting Co., which has radio and television interests in Vancouver and Winnipeg, climbed over a period of a year from $7 per share to more than $17.50 per share. Standard Radio Ltd. which operates CFRB in Toronto and CJAD in Montreal, saw the price of its shares rise from $10 per unit in 1964 to more than $30 this year.
I am not opposed to private radio and television, but I believe these private operators have a responsibility to live up to the commitments which they made to the public. We, on behalf of the public, granted them
Ociober 17, 1967

licences to broadcast. In doing so we asked for certain commitments. I shall give you one example of what I mean, Mr. Chairman.
Let us take a private television station in Toronto with the largest potential market in English Canada. I had some public argument with Mr. Bassett, the owner of that station, and looked up the promises which the promoters of the station made when they applied to the B.B.G., for their licence. There were a number of applicants for that licence in Toronto. They were asked to submit detailed proposals on the kind of broadcasting they would do, and I take it that their proposals and applications were most important factors in deciding who would get the licence.
I would hate to think that the reason Mr. Bassett and his group got the licence in Toronto was that Mr. Bassett was a Conservative and there was a Conservative government in power at the time. I would hate to think that he and the other applicants were asked to waste a lot of time and money preparing their applications unless there was an important reason for those detailed applications, namely that the applications and information contained in them would be a big factor in deciding who would get the licence.
Here is what Mr. Bassett promised to do. In the field of "drama and specials" Mr. Bassett promised the B.B.G. that if his group got the licence it would produce a program called Canadian Playhouse with five performances a year. I presume that meant five individual hour long plays a year. He promised that there would be at least one performance yearly by the Toronto Symphony, one performance by the Canadian Opera Company, one performance by the National Ballet Company, and one performance by the Stratford group.
In the field of talent development he promised three programs entitled Search for Talent, Screen Test and Barber Shop, each to run for 25 minutes per week. In the field of light entertainment he promised a personality show lasting an hour and a quarter three times a week. In the field of women's affairs he promised a half hour program for Women Only, three times a week. In the field of music he promised three programs weekly, each of 25 minutes duration, Piano Quartet, Sound of Jazz, and Top Ten. For the ethnic groups-Toronto is becoming a city with large ethnic minorities, which I think is good-he promised two programs, Polka Party and Romance From Other Lands, each for 25 minutes a week.
Canadian Broadcasting Policy
Had these promises been fulfilled the kind of campaign which ACTRA is carrying on would be largely unnecessary because a great number of Canadian artists, producers and directors would have been employed. What did Mr. Bassett do in that field? Virtually nothing, Mr. Chairman. Similar promises were made by the private station in Montreal, by the private station in Winnipeg, and by the private station in Vancouver.
We gave the B.B.G. the job of deciding who should receive these licences, licences to print money. Did we give the B.B.G. the authority and power to discipline successful applicants who did not live up to their promises? I am told by the B.B.G. that we did not give them that power. When we see the new legislation we shall have to examine it carefully to see whether it gives the regulatory authority that kind of power. If it does not we will continue in the present mess.
The questions I have raised are ones that the minister should have discussed in principle during her opening statement. But she did not do so. This means that the things we ought to have discussed today will have to be discussed at considerable length and in detail when we see the new bill.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I simply say that I hope the information I have been given is wrong. I have been told by people in the C.B.C. that the new legislation will not change things very much. I have been told by people in and around the B.B.G. that the new legislation will not give the B.B.G. the kind of authority it requires to do the job that needs to be done. If this be the case, then I tell the minister we are in for some pretty rough debate before the legislation passes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce 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.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Possibly with the indulgence and co-operation of the house we could proceed with the next item.


Mr. Rapp:: Six o'clock.


George James McIlraith: The Speaker has asked if we should call the next item. The item we propose calling is No. 35, the resolution standing
3198	COMMONS
Industrial Development Bank Act in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Industrial Development Bank Act. The item to be called after that this evening would be No. 32 on the order paper, second reading of the bill having to do with the establishment of a department of corporate and consumer affairs. Perhaps we should put an item before the house before we rise until eight o'clock. I would ask you to call item No. 35, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for ihe Minister of
Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act to increase the authorized capital of the bank from $50 million to $75 million; to increase the authorized borrowing authority of the bank to an amount not exceeding ten times the aggregate amount of its paid-up capital and reserve fund; and to make certain other changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: It being past six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill to be founded on this resolution is to enable the Industrial Development Bank to maintain and extend the volume of its lending. The committee will be interested to learn, and some hon. members may be surprised to learn, that the I.D.B. has made 2,200 loans in the past year, for a total amount of $113 million. I give this information because it is later than the information to be found in the latest report of the Industrial Development Bank, which covers the fiscal year ending September 30, 1966.
The average amount per loan was $50,000. The I.D.B. had $389 million of loans outstanding or committed to customers as at September 30, 1967. The limitation on the lending

DEBATES	Ocfober 17, 1967
power of the Industrial Development Bank specifies that its direct liabilities, including debentures, shall not exceed five times the aggregate amount of paid-up capital and the reserve fund. With authorized capital of $50 million and a reserve fund currently of $20 million, debentures are now limited-that is, limited by the present act-to $350 million, resulting in a limitation of $420 million on the amount of loans which can be authorized. I might add for the information of hon. members, some of whom may know this already, that all the debentures issued by the I.D.B. have been purchased by the Bank of Canada.
A continuation of lending at current rates would soon bring the I.D.B. to the limit of its borrowing capacity. If there were to be no increase in this limit the I.D.B. would then have to begin cutting back the rate of its lending to within the level of repayments to it, which are currently at the rate of $61 million a year. To avoid such a development, and to permit the I.D.B. to continue to increase the volume of its lending, it is proposed that the maximum debt/capital ratio of five specified in the present act be raised to ten.
This appears to be a more suitable ratio for an institution of this character. For example, the maximum debt/capital ratio of federally incorporated trust companies and loan companies can be as high as 15. Since the last amendment to its act in 1961, when its capital was increased from $25 million to $50 million, the annual volume of the I.D.B.'s lending and its total loans outstanding have tripled.
In view of this substantial increase in the scale of its operations it is proposed that the act be amended to increase the capital of the bank from $50 million to $75 million. The increase would be subscribed by the Bank of Canada. The combined effect of the amendments that will be proposed is to raise the limitation on the banks' lending authority to a total of $1,045 million.
It is also proposed that the deputy minister of industry be added to the board of directors of the I.D.B. This department, which has been created since the last amendment of the act, has a special interest in, and industrial knowledge to contribute to, the work of the bank. The deputy minister of trade and commerce will continue to be a member of the board of directors but will be replaced on the executive committee by the deputy minister of industry.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, we are anxious to facilitate the passage of this resolution,
Ociober 17, 1967

with due regard to decency, propriety and a sensible examination of the purposes of the resolution. We have already indicated our anxiety to facilitate the passage of measures proposed by the government. In respect of the resolution dealt with prior to the supper adjournment the parties in opposition put forward very few speakers, indicating our willingness to pass these resolutions and get on to those matters which the government has indicated as having a considerable measure of urgency and which are the subject of an alleged priority list which the Prime Minister has not yet given to us. Therefore, so far as we are concerned our remarks at this stage will not be lengthy.
It is, of course, very difficult at this time to deal too extensively with the matter. We note that the minister has indicated that because of the proposal to increase the authorized capital of the bank and to increase the extent to which the authorized capital may be used as the base for the amount of moneys which may be made available for the purposes of the act, very substantial additional funds will be made available to the bank. While we assume that this is very proper and probably desirable, we must file a caveat to indicate that it is hoped a large sum of money of this kind, which will ultimately be put into use through the machinery of the legislation and the people administering the act, will be properly expended for the purpose of increasing productivity. If it is not, quite obviously this amount of money being put into the economy could have a very, very serious effect. I am hoping that the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada, and people associated with the Bank of Canada, are concerned in this enactment will mean that due regard will be had to the proprieties of and the purposes for which the legislation was originally passed.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We will reserve our views until we see the legislation and to what extent within the meaning of the resolution we may make certain other changes in connection with the administration of the act. The minister has given us some indication of what might be involved. We will have to reserve our views and probably simply file a caveat at this time.
One observation which I should like to make is that, although I was not a member of the committee which dealt with the amendments to the Bank Act, my understanding had been that the purpose of that legislation was to permit the chartered banks to enter into

Industrial Development Bank. Act areas of lending activity which had not heretofore been available to them. If my views are pertinent, as they seem to me to be at this time, I wonder whether the minister, when he deals with this matter on second reading, will be able to say whether the change in this legislation has been brought about because the banks are not taking advantage of the wider opportunities which the changes in the Bank Act made available to them for the purpose of entering into a wider area of lending activities. I think that is a question in which the committee will undoubtedly be interested.
I will use this opportunity to make the point very briefly that I think this is one of the programs put forward by the government which will have to be used very widely if we in this country are to survive and prosper in the industrial and commercial sense. There are some very serious prospects lying ahead of us and I think it will be essential for business and industry in this country to be efficient and competitive, and to be armed with the most modern know-how and methods of carrying on their business, not only for the purposes of the domestic economy but more particularly for commercial relations in trading with the rest of the word. I base my statement on two reports which have appeared in today's daily press. In the Montreal Gazette there is a statement made by the director general of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Mr. Eric Wyndham-White. I will simply read the headline with which I am sure the minister is familiar. It reads: "Resurgence of Protectionism Threatens Kennedy Round Results, Says GATT Head". Mr. Wyndham-White, who is a very knowledgeable director general of the GATT group, indicated that while great benefits will flow from the Kennedy round, nevertheless there is beginning to emerge in different parts of the country a trend toward protectionism. This was mentioned in the debate yesterday in connection with the position that the United States is taking with regard to the entry of steel and steel products.
The point I want to make is that very shortly Canadian industry, both large and small, which is engaged in international trade will be compelled to perform its function effectively and economically so as to be able to compete in the markets of the world. At one time it was considered that only on the basis of an economy of scale and having available large markets were you able to produce in such a way as to be competitive.
3200	COMMONS
Industrial Development Bank Act However, today, because of automation and the means which have been devised and made available to industry to take advantage of technical improvements, it is now possible to make us of what is sometimes called the economy of automation or the economy of specialization. This is something which small Canadian industry in particular will have to take advantage of, if it is to compete effectively and economically, and employ in Canada people both in the natural resource industries and in the secondary industries. Consequently legislation of this type will have to be examined very carefully and structural changes may have to be made.
In addition, all the other complementary laws, the export credit laws and our fiscal policy with regard to this type of economic competition, will have to be scrutinized. I think I am justified in telling the government that measures of this kind will have the fullest support from this side of the house. If we are to compete effectively in the face of the conditions which obviously lie ahead, legislation of this type will have to be re-examined to a greater degree.
I will conclude by adding one other observation which I also gleaned from today's daily press. The following heading appeared in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 17, 1967: "Exporters Feel Pinch From Rising Wage, Price Levels". This is a report of the speech made yesterday at Montebello by Mr. McAvity the president of the Canadian Export Association, who said that because of the rising wage and price levels the export industry in Canada was in danger of being jeopardized. He pointed out that the position of our industry and our business plants in Canada was in very grave danger. These are signs of the problems which face us as we look ahead.
For that reason, while it may well be that the prime and initial purpose of the Industrial Development Bank legislation might have been aimed at improving the domestic market for the smaller producers, in addition, if our people engaged in the export trade are to hold their position and are to make available the employment this country will have to have under conditions which I foresee in the next year or so which may become quite difficult, every advantage will have to be taken of this and similar legislation.
I will conclude by saying at this time that I hope the changes in the legislation will be along these lines. I hope the government will ensure that in its changes in connection with

DEBATES	Ociober 17, 1967
the machinery of carrying out and implementing the legislation efforts will be made to persuade our industrial people that it is essential for them to become efficient and effective in the competition for world markets. For that reason, having in mind what the minister said, in this very limited statement I wish to give a guarded approval of the objectives which seem apparent, reserving the right when the bill comes before us to redefine our position in the debate on second reading in the light of what we see in the bill.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I must confess at the outset that I always feel a certain pedantic exasperation when I see the title of this particular institution, because of course it is not a bank in any concept of that term. As I say, it is a mere pedantic objection to calling what is essentially a government fund, in no way different from any government fund, a bank. I have no objections at all to voice about increasing the capital and increasing the borrowing power. Nevertheless there are some questions I would like to raise with regard to the real effect of this borrowing power. In view of the fact that, as the minister has reminded us tonight, the Bank of Canada purchases the paper of the I.D.B., is this transaction to be considered similar to the transaction whereby the Bank of Canada purchases other government paper and by that means increases the total money supply, or is this a different type of transaction which does not have that effect?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It would be interesting to know that.
If, as is now contemplated, the Industrial Development Bank is to have lending powers that, in the aggregate, will amount to $1,045 million, it would be interesting to know whether this does imply an increase in the total money supply or whether it does not have that effect. It would be interesting to know if it is just a case of pooling the savings of the Canadian people for this type of investment and development of the Canadian economy. I think it is important, perhaps, that we should know what this transaction does imply.
Another question I should like to raise is whether or not the government has set out for the Industrial Development Bank the economic areas in which the government wishes to encourage development, or does the bank merely consider whether or not a certain loan will be well secured and repaid in the stipulated time? I think this is very important
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
also. I believe that at the present juncture of events in Canada the government should be setting out very clearly for the Industrial Development Bank the areas in which it should seek investment for the development of the Canadian economy.
As some of us have reminded the government several times recently, the Kennedy round of tariff reductions is going to present the Canadian economy with both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge of course will be the challenge of surviving when the walls of protection have been lowered quite a lot. The opportunity will be for the development of our secondary industry in Canada so that the secondary industry can take its place in world trade by means of specialization. It would be interesting to know if the government, and the minister, have either sort of thing in mind for the Industrial Development Bank or the Development Fund, as I prefer to call it. It would be interesting to know if the government has in mind the channelling of the resources of this bank into the rationalization of Canadian industry in order to permit the specialization our industry is going to need if the Canadian economy is going to continue to expand and develop in the face of the Kennedy round tariff reductions, and in the face of opportunities that will provide for us.
Otherwise it does not seem to me we are justified in asking the taxpayers of Canada to lend their funds either by means of expansion of the total money supply or by means of pooling all existing savings, in order to finance the development of privately owned industries which are operated purely in the interests of those who own and control them. On the other hand, I think we are well justified in asking the Canadian people to make their savings available for this kind of rationalization and development of the Canadian economy if this government is prepared to play an active role in directing that investment. This course is justified if the government is prepared to instruct the Industrial Development Bank and the Bank of Canada, which of course are almost synonymous, that they should seek the areas of the Canadian economy which we want developed, and not encourage development in areas which will not contribute to this maturity of the Canadian economy.
I hope when the bill comes before the house the minister will be able to give us some definite answers to these questions. He should tell us the government's purpose with regard to the operation of the Industrial 27053-203
DEBATES	3201
Industrial Development Bank Act Development Bank. What is the purpose in increasing its authorization for loans to ten times instead of five times its paid up capital? What is the intention with regard to increasing its paid up capital from $50 million to $75 million? I hope the minister is going to have some more definite answer than merely the suggestion this is a means of pumping more funds into the economy, in the hope that that would have the desired effect. It could, if the government is prepared to use this as a weapon of considered government policy. It could have a very profound effect on the development of the Canadian economy in the light of changes in international relations brought about by the Kennedy round agreement. As I say, I hope the minister will be able to tell us, when he speaks on second reading of the bill; otherwise we are merely being asked to authorize the financing of something, the benefit of which to the Canadian people and the Canadian economy is still a matter of doubt. I do not believe we should be left in that position any longer than the second reading of this bill.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I will not detain the committee for more than a moment, Mr. Chairman. This resolution is of the type I hoped would be eliminated in this House of Commons, so I will not prolong the agony by speaking at any length. I do not agree with the previous speaker when he suggests autocratic control by the government of the lending policies in the manner in which I suspect the hon. member meant. I think the government should of course keep its eye on the Industrial Development Bank, but not to the extent of controlling the interested parties.
I am aware of the useful role the Industrial Development Bank has played in the past. There are some things which I feel bear reviewing. The first is the fact that the interest rates are often too high to the person who can least afford to pay high interest rates. In other words, if the Industrial Development Bank considers someone a poor risk, I think it would be better if the bank did not lend that individual any money at all rather than put him in the position of working just for the bank interest rate. This is what happens to many of the borrowers who are forced to pay 8 per cent or 8.5 per cent interest. The individual is simply working for the Industrial Development Bank.
I think, in general, the interest rates of the Industrial Development Bank have been far too high. I am sure if this bank is interested in the development of the country it is not
3202	COMMONS
Industrial Development Bank Act necessary to plague the borrower with excessively high interest rates. We know interest rates charged by this bank have been very high indeed.
Another point I should like to make is that the Industrial Development Bank has the practice and policy of tying up all the assets an individual has without regard to the value of those assets. I think the bank, in working out its security, should take only sufficient security to guarantee its investment. In many cases we find that the Industrial Development Bank has gone far beyond this point and has tied up the operations of the individual. As a matter of fact, legally an individual could not sell even a wheelbarrow without first getting permission from the Industrial Development Bank. I think this is wrong, and that the bank should assess a proper amount of equity for its own protection.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I must say that so far as the employees are concerned, I have learned from people who have dealt with the Industrial Development Bank that they co-operate within the terms of the act and within the policies set out for them to an extent that is far beyond the call of duty. It would be interesting to know what the relationship with the Industrial Development Bank will be, now that the regular chartered banks have broadened their field by entering into the conventional mortgage business. I would be interested in knowing whether or not there is still a real need for the Industrial Development Bank, as was the case previously.
It would also be interesting to know whether the government would consider expanding this concept of an Industrial Development Bank and setting up a municipal development bank. The municipalities are in a very bad situation financially, and it seems to me that the government could expand this concept by creating a municipal development bank, and thus increase their borrowings through such an organization at low money cost.
Not long ago when speaking about the cost of money in some of the organizations for which he was responsible, the Minister of Labour mentioned the figure of seven eighths of one per cent. I do not suggest that we could supply money to a municipal development bank at a cost of seven eighths of one per cent, but I do say that the municipalities need help and need it now. If an organization based on the same principle as the Industrial Development Bank were set up, I think they could lend money at a rate as low as 2 per cent, without any problem whatever.

DEBATES	October 17. 1967
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.
I may or may not have more to say at the second reading stage of the bill once the legislation has been introduced.


Mr. Latulippe:: 
Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks at this stage. As the hon. member for Peace River said, we reserve the
27053-203J
DEBATES	3203
Industrial Development Bank Act right to speak more fully on second reading. What I say may sound parochial though the subject matter of my remarks is of national significance.
In his remarks the minister made it appear that the Industrial Development Bank, known as I.D.B., is the complete answer to the problem of financing and assisting small businesses. My experience in dealing with the problems of constituents who have small businesses does not bear out the minister's suggestion. I may cite some examples from my own constituency because what I say may have national application.
The minister said that the average loan was around $50,000. Many small businesses do not require $50,000 but would benefit from I.D.B. assistance. Let me give an example. A constituent not long ago wished to start a poultry farm, with the idea of enlarging it. First of course a start had to be made. I realize that the I.D.B. was set up for industrial purposes. In this booklet, the 1966 report of the president of the Industrial Development Bank, the following statement appears on page 3:
Today, the Bank has some 7,800 accounts on its books. The enterprises involved represent practically every facet of business endeavour including manufacturing, construction, tourist and recreational businesses, agriculture-
A poultry farm, I think, comes under the heading of agriculture.
I shall return to my constituent, about whom I was speaking previously. He wrote to me saying that he had plans, as well as large contracts, to deliver eggs. All that was needed was financing. I suggested that he should go to the regional of I.D.B. in Regina. He wrote back saying that if he were established the I.D.B. might help him to expand.
This publication which I hold in my hand, and to which I referred, says that loans have been granted to help persons to start businesses as well as to help others to modernize and expand existing businesses and enterprises. The point to which I wish to direct the minister's attention is that the booklet refers to industries being started. A poultry farm, if it were established as an efficient business, would be a small industry.
Other merchants who have written to me, asking how they can expand their businesses, have been directed by me to the I.D.B. In answers that I have had from them it has been made clear that they have had no satisfaction in obtaining help from the I.D.B.
The idea behind this proposal is good and I commend the minister on his statement. I wish to emphasize nevertheless that the I.D.B.
October 17, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act ought to be publicized more. One sees this on page 2 of the 1966 booklet to which I previously referred:
Ask for this booklet. It tells how you may obtain an I.D.B. loan to help start, modernize or expand your business.
Just below that I found these words:
-Industrial Development Bank-term financing for Canadian businesses.
I submit that the wording ought to have been "term financing for small Canadian businesses". Most small merchants I have talked to are under the impression that the I.D.B. has no significance for them and will not help them. I think there ought to be publicity to show that it will help small businesses.
I believe also that special attention ought to be given to my province, Saskatchewan, as it has problems which are different from those of other provinces. On the board of directors of the bank two members, I notice, are from Alberta and one is from Manitoba, but there is not one from Saskatchewan. I submit that a Saskatchewan man ought to be on the board.
In the provincial distribution of loans the amount loaned to Saskatchewan is much less than the amounts loaned to Alberta, Manitoba or to British Columbia. I shall dwell more on this aspect on second reading. In the meantime I wish to say that a Saskatchewan man ought to be on the board of directors to deal with Saskatchewan problems. Also, merchants ought to be given more publicity on how the bank can assist them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement was brief and I intend my comments to be equally brief. Before dealing with this question I wish to explain that I speak simply as an inexperienced old rancher who is, shall I say, unskilled in the intricacies of high finance, banking and similar matters. But I have always been given to making two and two equal four when it comes to doing business.
My experience in investing throughout my life has mostly been in hard work-that is, until I was elected to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the Industrial
Development Bank has proved valuable to small industries and businesses. From personal experience I know that the bank has been of value in maintaining employment in certain small communities and in developing tourist and related industries. A number of

such instances have been brought to my attention.
In my opinion the officials of the bank have done a very good job. When people apply for a loan the circumstances are investigated, gone into carefully, and if the proposition looks sound a loan is granted. The bank has been of value to a number of small communities in my district.
I think that this increase in capital is perfectly justified under the circumstances. More development is taking place at the present time and I must say that I like to see small, local industries and businesses being given the opportunity to develop. I would rather see such enterprises develop in our own society than have them owned by mammoth corporations.
When the minister spoke he said that the debentures of the Industrial Development Bank will be purchased by the Bank of Canada in order to provide capital to be lent to small industries and businesses. That interested me. The question I wish to ask again-it has not been satisfactorily answered, though I have raised the matter on a number of occasions-is this: If the Bank of Canada can issue debentures on which loans to small industries and businesses are based, why in the world cannot the Bank of Canada at the same time issue loans to municipalities and provinces and thereby provide the social capital required for the building of hospitals, schools, highways, public institutions and facilities. I wish the minister would deal with that. The matter was raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. On this point the members of our party are in agreement with the members of the Social Credit party.
I cannot see why we cannot use the Bank of Canada to do what I have suggested ought to be done, particularly when the minister said this evening that the Bank of Canada will purchase debentures that will be issued by the Industrial Development Bank for the provision of capital. Small businesses and industries have already benefited under this legislation and will benefit to a greater extent when the legislation that is currently before the house is passed.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Since everyone who has spoken so far has been brief and to the point, perhaps I should speak with equal brevity. There are a few aspects in the operations of the Industrial Development Bank upon which I should like to comment and about which I should like to question the minister.

October 17, 1967	COMMONS
For some years I have been given to understand by those who have had any dealings with the bank, or sought such dealings, that its loan security requirements were so excessively cautious that the institution seemed to be serving no purpose beyond that served by conventional sources of loan capital. Now the minister tells us that the amount which has gone out in loans from the I.D.B. has trebled over the last five or six years. This would seem to indicate that either the bank has modified the strictness of its loan security requirements or that the natural increase in the industrial activity of this country is solely responsible for the trebling of the amount on loan. If the latter is the case, the argument still stands that the I.D.B. should look toward easing its loan security requirements.
In line with the remarks made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre it would appear that businesses of smaller and intermediate size still encounter great difficulty in securing a loan from the I.D.B. Perhaps the minister could indicate at some time whether the trebling of the amount loaned is the result of an easing in the security requirements or whether it is simply a reflection of increased business activity in this country.
I should like to mention, now, the role of the Industrial Development Bank in the financing of agral business. I raise this question in the light of the comments made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I do not altogether disagree with that hon. member but it seems to me a careful distinction should be made between those forms of agral business which are in the processing end of food production and those which intend to produce food and fibre on a corporate scale. I should like to see such a distinction made. I feel that if a group intends to enter a business of producing food and fibre the interests of those who have been traditionally regarded as bona fide farmers should be considered as far as possible. Should a government agency such as the I.D.B. encourage the trend toward corporate agral business-the production of food and fibre-it appears to me we are knowingly or unknowlingly doing a disservice to those who depend exclusively for their livelihood upon agricultural production.
If I have not made my meaning clear, I apologise for my inability to express myself more clearly. I think this is a matter of sufficient importance to warrant another attempt.
I recall personally that when, in one of the prairie provinces-it does not matter which
DEBATES	3205
Industrial Development Bank Act one-the provincial government set up an industrial development fund not unlike its federal counterpart, this fund used what were in effect public moneys to aid in establishing a corporate agral business which went into the production and processing of poultry and poultry by-products. No one, I think, would have raised much objection to the granting of an industrial loan in respect of the processing part of this enterprise but many did take exception to the lending of public funds for the establishment of a corporation to enter into food production, thus competing with bona fide farmers who had been dependent upon poultry production for their livelihood for many years.
Now I should like to put a question to the minister which I believe would give him an opportunity to clarify one part of his statement this evening. He told us that under the provisions of the bill which is to be introduced shortly the bank's paid up capital is to be increased from $50 million to $75 million and that the ratio of loans outstanding to paid up capital would be ten to one. This would mean that the maximum amount which could be out on loan would be $750 million. Yet the minister referred to the new maximum as being $1,045 million. Some clarification ought to be forthcoming in this connection.
Finally, I do not believe the minister gave us any indication in his explanatory statement as to the trend or pattern at work in the Industrial Development Bank with regard to equity financing and greater participation in underwriting agreements. I understand that under the present legislation the bank has authority to involve itself in actual equity financing. The bank might feel that while it could not extend any more help by way of loan capital it could assist an enterprise by taking up a portion of its assets-buying into the firm, so to speak. Is any new pattern emerging or is this still, as in the past, a relatively insignificant part of the operations of the development bank?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Finally, I should like to offer the positive comment to the minister, which may be refuted in the course of the next few months, that it is not true, as people have been saying in the past few weeks, that this government seems to be giving notice that it intends to get out of the intermediary role in business finance, because the action of the government in recommending this resolution to the house would seem to refute that argument. I am
3206	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs referring in particular to a statement contained in the Financial Times in which the commentator makes the observation that the new N.H.A. rate is indicative of many things, one of which seems to be the beginning of a tough new policy on the part of this government to reduce the government's role as the financial intermediary, that is to say, borrowing money to relend it at lower rates for specific purposes.
I should like to think that by its action this evening in recommending this resolution to us the government is showing that such is not the case and that it has no intention of lessening its very crucial role these days of stimulating the development of business and the economy by timely and well thought out intervention by way of loans through the Industrial Development Bank.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in an attempt to reinforce the argument put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in respect of the need for a director from the province of Saskatchewan. I think the minister is aware of the fact that a great deal of change is taking place in the province of Saskatchewan today because of the water and power resources which are now available as a result of the south Saskatchewan river project. The scope of that development will depend to some extent on the role that the Industrial Development Bank will play in respect of some of the industries which might develop in connection with the potash and other chemical industries in the province.
We believe the Industrial Development Bank has been a useful instrument in the economy of the people of Canada and in the industrial life of the nation. I would hope that the province of Saskatchewan will not be forgotten in the developments which will take place in the next few years.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sharp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-164, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-161, to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
DEBATES	October 17. 1967
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the timetable in respect of this bill accelerated this evening, although there are other matters of some distraction to those people who live in what has been called the pivotal province of confederation. I notice, however, there are present this evening members who represent the broad sweep east-west and in the north of this country. I am delighted to take advantage of a quiet house to open the debate on the second reading of this bill.
I think everyone has taken notice of the change in this modern society. It has become almost a cliche that the only constant today is change, and no one, whether he be in business, in the professions, or in government, can ignore the demands placed upon him by the multiple transformations spawned by technology, science and the new areas of thought in every sphere. The consequence of change is a constant reassessment of present practices, institutions and ideas. Each new morning brings some obsolescence to some aspect of our lives. Unless we are prepared to re-examine on a daily basis, to reassess and revalue what we do and how we do it, we are in danger of falling behind and becoming irrelevant to contemporary needs. Nowhere is this more true than in dealing with our economy. In the past decade there have been amazing changes in the formation of the market, in the method of industrial organization, in the variety of products made and in the kind of investment and security practices followed.
We are in an era of a new economy where there is unprecedented prosperity and a certain affluence in most areas of the country. This brings vast new opportunities and also raises important problems for us. The issue is whether we can properly assess the performance of our economy, create new forms of institutions, channel our new economic power and achieve useful and socially productive goals. This assessment and adaptation is as important for government as it is for business; it is as important for the public sector as it is for the private sector.
Over the years the federal government has assumed a major responsibility for keeping our economic system competitive, stable and productive. Because of its constancy in this role it is prepared to make the instruments of government more responsible in dealing with economic conditions. It is here that my responsibilities become relevant because a year and a half ago the Government Organization Act, 1966, inspired by the Glassco commission report brought together in the Department of

October 17, 1967	COMMONS
the Registrar General the various agencies of government dealing with the conduct of business in our private enterprise system. The combines branch, restrictive trade practices, patents, trademarks, bankruptcy and incorporations all were brought under the same roof.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
While I propose to devote a good many of my remarks to the subject of consumer affairs I think it is appropriate that I first say something about the nature of the department as a whole, particularly because under clause 3 of the bill we are asking parliament to give it a new name. It will be recalled that the Royal Commission on Government Organization, the Glassco commission, recommended major reforms and shifts, in the division and focus of responsibilities in the federal government.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister a question at this point. Just now, and also when the resolution was being considered, with his reference to giving the department a new name the minister leaves the impression that the Department of the Registrar General is simply being renamed by this bill as the department of corporate and consumer affairs. Perhaps he can clear up this impression that is being left. Is the effect of this bill simply to rename the Registrar General's department, or will the effect be to set up an additional, separate department to that which is now known as the Department of the Registrar General?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know that my answer to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is going to disappoint him, because part of his argument is going to be based, as it was on the resolution stage, on his contention that this is an additional department of government and, in his mind, an addition to what he was prone to call the bureaucracy in the government service. He is partly right, partly wrong; half right and half wrong: wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons. In effect it will be a new department, but it will assume the present responsibilities of the Department of the Registrar General, and the functions of the Registrar General are continued by the provisions of clause 8 of the bill. So that while it is a new department it does not add to the structure of government. It assumes the present agencies now within the responsibility of the Registrar General and adds two further responsibilities. The first is found in clause 5(a)-consumer affairs, and the second is found in the addition to clause 5(b)-corporate securities.
DEBATES	3207
Corporate and Consumer Affairs


Erik Nielsen: Clause 6.


John Napier Turner: Well, clause 5(b); and clause 6 spells out the nature of the responsibilities for consumer affairs. I hope that has clarified the matter for the hon. member. In any event I am sure we will all wait with a great deal of impatience to hear what he has to say about this particular subject.
As I said, the Government Organization Act of 1966 was designed to remedy a number of the defects that had shown up in the structure, and that were pointed up in the very thorough examination given to it by Mr. Glassco and his associates. The agencies then grouped together to form the Department of the Registrar General were those concerned with corporations, combines, mergers, monopolies in restraint of trade, bankruptcy and insolvency, patents, copyrights and trademarks. These, as I said a moment ago, are the matters that are referred to and continued under clause 5 of the bill, except that consumer affairs and corporate securities have been added.
The work of the existing agencies is based on detailed statutes which are strictly construed by the courts. There is a growing body of case law, and the statutes are administered to a large extent by lawyers. There was increasing danger that in isolation the legislation might be administered and revised with a purely technical bias rather than in terms of its fundamental social and economic purposes.
Government policy in this whole area is sometimes described by academic writers as public policy toward business organization, or as the social control of business. In more mundane language what is involved is the setting of the ground rules for business activity. These laws provide the basic framework for business activity, and as such they are laws of general application. They may therefore readily be distinguished from laws which arise out of economic policies designed to improve the performance of particular industries in our economy.
Because laws of general application are involved, their economic impact only becomes apparent in the long run. But they are no less important for this reason than economic policies which have a more immediate impact upon the economy. Each of the agencies grouped together in this department is affected by and affects in turn economic policies in other areas. These agencies and the statutes they administer are therefore an integral part of the economic fabric of the country. So, Mr. October 17, 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs Speaker, it is clearly essential that the laws which provide the ground rules within which business must operate, must be designed in such a way as to encourage maximum efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of the public at large.
I know there are many people, including some hon. members of the house, who quite honestly believe there is something incompatible about a combination of corporate affairs and consumer affairs. We heard something about this at the resolution stage, and indeed the subject was brought up last summer during debate on the estimates of the department. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) made quite an issue of this in the debate on the resolution last Friday. If I thought really and sincerely that this concern of hers was well founded I would share it, but I do believe it is based on a misunderstanding of the operations of the department.
There are several ways of looking at the matter in its proper light, but based on what I have said about ground rules it is evident that this department has growing responsibility over most of the range of the whole field of business activity. I believe it is important to have a department which is knowledgeable over an entire area because the consumer interest in turn is extremely wide.
We are all consumers. Personal expenditure on consumer goods and services is now running at a rate of about $37 billion a year in Canada. That represents about 60 per cent of gross national expenditure. In the long run the adequacy of the ground rules for business activity must be tested largely by their effect upon the consumer.
With the indulgence of the house, sir, may I look at it in another way. The consumer interest is directly effected both by policies which reduce the cost and improve the quality of supply, and on the other hand by policies which affect the level and quality of demand. On the supply side, for instance, we have the task of ensuring that our market system is competitive and vigorous. On the demand side the consumer needs to be informed about the nature of the choices open to him in the marketplace. In order to give the consumer proper representation, and in order to give the consumer what protection we can within the limits of government responsibility, we must be able to influence both the demand and supply sides of the market relationship.
Let me make it clear that the functions of this department, the functions we class under

the heading of corporate affairs for want of a better name-although I may say to hon. members it will be a good deal easier to explain this to the people of Canada than to explain "Registrar General"-do not involve representing the interests of corporations in the government. Just as the consumer branch will be directly concerned with representing and helping consumers, the corporations branch will be available to protect and help investors. The combines branch has a duty to protect consumers and producers, particularly the small businessman, against the unfair use of market power. The bankruptcy branch serves to protect creditors. The patent and copyright office protects the rights of inventors and authors. So, we are combining certain economic and legal tools to achieve certain economic goals, and the availability of expertise in the use of these tools already found within the department will, I believe, be of considerable significance to the consumer.

At this stage, we should perhaps ask ourselves why, in an era of so-called prosperity, the Canadian consumer is increasingly hard to please. This phenomenon is not confined to Canada. As the Economic Council pointed out, this trend corresponds to increased interest in consumer affairs, in all countries of the western world. It also corresponds to the widespread adoption of more vigorous programs for the protection and promotion of consumer interests.
A hundred years ago, consumers who had to make a decision were faced with a limited supply of goods and services, for the most part simple everyday goods and services.
As a rule, buyers and producers knew each others closely and a great proportion of consumers' expenses were used for essential needs.
For many consumers of today, such is not the case. The relationship between purchasers and buyers is becoming increasingly impersonal. Even the market becomes more involved. We are faced with a discouraging display of goods and services, many complex products, of a quality which is often difficult to assess.
The consumer may not know that some merchandise offers certain features. He may not know that some other merchandise associated with some other products, may combine the qualities that he is looking for.
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
Advertising is available to producers or purchasers so that they may direct the attention of the consumers to all the features of their products considered especially desirable. They are not so careful to inform the consumers about less interesting features in their products. Some will deliberately mislead the consumer. A developing technology adds to the problem.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

At the same time, the consumer who has a complaint to make against a supplier finds it more difficult to reach someone in authority than was the case when he dealt directly with the owner of a general store. While it is obvious that real income may be raised by increasing the supply of goods and services available, it is not so obvious that it may also be raised by making it easier for the consumer to make his choices among those goods and services.
It is a natural response for businessmen to say that the consumer is already king, or queen, since about 85 per cent of our purchasing power is exercised by women, and it is easy for businessmen to say that all their waking hours they are trying to cater to the whims of the consumer, to please him or her, to try to persuade him and to placate him when he complains. Yet many consumers are inclined to reply that businessmen are overwhelming them with conflicts, sometimes misleading claims, sometimes with excessive advertising, sometimes with unnecessarily high prices or inadequate services, with unsatisfactory warranties or hidden charges. The very complexity of the marketplace, with its bombardment of ideas and claims, its confusion of choices, is in effect limiting the valid choices open to the consumers of this country.
In our society I suppose it is accepted that the major responsibility for seeing that an efficient choice is made by the consumer does evolve upon the supplier on the one hand and the consumer on the other. But there are laws which do intervene. There are laws which prohibit or regulate the sale of goods or services likely to endanger health and safety. There are laws which prevent fraud or misrepresentation. These laws are already on the statute books. There are laws requiring or encouraging the disclosure of pertinent information to the consumer.
However, in this era of rapid technological change, new problems, new hazards, are appearing with increasing frequency. Because consumers are better educated, governments
DEBATES	3209
Corporate and Consumer Affairs are now expected to be better organized than in the past. They are expected to identify and respond quickly to new problems or hazards as they arise. In the broadest terms it may be said that the consumer interest embraces all policies which affect the level and quality of demand, which reduce the cost or improve the quality of supply, or which contribute to the competitiveness of the market. Therefore it is important that in the formulation of over-all government economic policy the consumer interest be specifically represented.
Agriculture, labour, industry, fisheries and forestry all have their special interests reflected at the cabinet level as well as in the functional departments reflecting those interests. It almost goes without saying that all governments are keenly aware of the need for broad policies to ensure a high rate of economic growth and steadily rising incomes. What has been lacking, however, is specific responsibility and adequate machinery for the identification of the consumer interest in those particular programs.
In its interim report issued in December last year the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit and prices stated that it believed the function of consumer protection was of such urgency as to require the establishment of a department of consumer affairs. This committee also suggested that because of the need for consumer protection, for the co-ordination of existing legislation and for the immediate establishment of machinery to receive and investigate consumer complaints, the Economic Council of Canada should be asked to report upon this part of its reference as soon as possible.
Subsequently, in its report of this year the committee said that the testimony presented to it indicated that there was widespread support for such an agency, that is to say, for an agency in government representing the consumer interest. Accordingly, the joint committee urged that the necessary legislative and administrative action be taken as quickly as possible. The joint committee, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that present responsibility in this field was spread over several departments and that the lack of a completely co-ordinated approach was evident. It pointed out that consumer protection was a technical field; it involved specialization economically and legally.
The committee consequently believed there would be greater advantage in assembling in one agency the expertise necessary to deal with a wide range of consumer matters.
Oclober 17, 19G7

Corporate and Consumer Affairs Above all, it said that a department would clearly assign responsibility to a minister and to a minister's staff to do all in their power to improve the lot of the Canadian consumer. So that this bill, in extending the authority of the Department of the Registrar General and converting it into a department of corporate and consumer affairs, establishes ministerial responsibility, ministerial authority for the consumer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the clash of debate with the hon. member, but I dealt with his last point. I will listen very carefully when the hon. member engages in rebuttal. I want to apologize to him and the house for taking very little time in introducing the resolution, so little time in fact that the hon. member criticized me for it. Because of the importance of this issue, I think I should now be allowed to explain this matter at a little more length.


Erik Nielsen: Take all the time you want.


John Napier Turner: I express my thanks to the hon. member. The committee did not believe it was in a position to make specific recommendations concerning the way in which the department of consumer affairs should be organized, but it did suggest that the components of the department should have three principal functions or aims: (a) consumer standards, Cb) consumer protection, and (c) consumer information.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The joint committee made another important comment. It said that the view was sometimes expressed that price control by government edict is the easy answer to price stability. All the witnesses who were questioned on this matter disagreed with that opinion and, in the opinion of the committee, those witnesses demonstrated clearly that this was an unworkable and unrealistic solution. The joint committee noted, furthermore, that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to enter this field.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) in the debate last Friday at the resolution stage seemed to look upon the new department as a reincarnation of the wartime price control board. It follows from what I have said and from the judgment made by the joint committee that there is no intention that this department should act as a sort of controller, and I reiterate that not only


does this parliament or this government not have the constitutional authority for such a role but I tend to be convinced that attempts in peacetime to regulate prices by law would shortly prove to be unworkable and inconsistent with the operation of a market economy.
The joint committee reached one additional conclusion which I think was of some considerable interest. It said that the study of particular legislation or special problems by ad hoc parliamentary committees does not meet the continuing need of parliament to become familiar with the issues of current economic policy.
For this reason the committee concluded that it would be desirable to establish a joint -committee of the Senate and the House of Commons whose primary aim would be to keep up a continuous review of the whole field of consumer affairs. In addition, the suggested committee should have the responsibility for surveying economic developments in the Canadian economy which affect employment, income and consumption levels. The committee said that such a committee of parliament would be immediately responsive to parliamentary or public concern over problems affecting the consumer.
Without accepting the entire terms of reference which the joint committee gave to itself, in principle I welcome the proposal and I do so particularly because of the support and guidance that such a continuing parliamentary committee might afford in the effective administration of the legislation for which my department will be responsible. I happen to believe that the role of an individual member of parliament can be enhanced by the expansion of the committee system whereby information articulated by the permanent service or by experts within or without the service can be brought before parliamentary scrutiny for proper review. I notice the hon. member is smiling. I want to say that the essence upon which this bill is founded has already received that type of parliamentary scrutiny, but the whole matter of consumer affairs might well be subjected to that type of scrutiny on a continuing basis because I also believe that public debate, of which we have not had too much in a clear and open fashion in this country, is a good continuing process.


Erik Nielsen: The bill has not received that type of scrutiny.


John Napier Turner: The bill is a product of recommendations not only of a parliamentary committee but also of the Economic Council of
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
Canada and has received in some depth the attention and scrutiny that parliament is wont to give to matters of such importance.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister say whether the Economic Council has recommended the setting up of a new department?


John Napier Turner: Yes, I will come to that in due course. As I said at the resolution stage, I believe we are following implicitly the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Economic Council, in some cases less and in some cases more. However, I think the government has to take its responsibilities, and in those areas where we have differed I will be glad, and indeed I consider myself duty bound, to explain it to the house.
Now I should like to turn to the report of the Economic Council of Canada. Hon. members are aware that last July the Economic Council submitted an interim report on the role of the government and this department in relation to the consumer interest. The council indicated that its survey of current government activity in the area of consumer affairs had left it with two main impressions. The first was that many of the programs within the consumer field had arisen as ad hoc or particular reactions to periodic crises or pressures in particular problem areas. It said that the consumer protection programs were being carried on in departments whose primary concern was with other matters. In some cases they had not always been able to give such programs adequate attention. The council also said that there had in fact been no single part of government charged with specific responsibility for the essential task of providing a continuing review and an assessment of the total package of policies and the total package of programs relating to consumer affairs. That was their first impression.
The second impression expressed in that report was that there had been no effective means for ensuring efficient co-ordination of the administration of these programs. In this situation the council said there was a great risk of the unwarranted but understandable assumption being made that somebody else was taking responsibility for a specific problem. As a result the program might not have been discharged. At the same time the council suggested that a number of different departments might be drawn more or less independently into closely related activities which might more suitably be administered on a co-ordinated basis. The Economic Council recommended that the department for which I currently have responsibility should ensure
DEBATES	3211
Corporate and Consumer Affairs the co-ordination of existing programs in consumer affairs and should have the responsibility for initiating new programs to fill certain gaps in this field.
I want to make a progress report on the organization which followed the publication of the Economic Council's interim report. We now have a structure planned for a consumer branch in what I hope will be the department of corporate and consumer affairs. If parliament accepts this bill, we propose to recruit a limited number of carefully selected officials to co-ordinate existing government activities and to undertake information and research programs.
I want to make it clear, as I attempted to do at the resolution stage, that we contemplate no substantial increase in government expenditure. I am in full agreement with two important pieces of advice given by the Economic Council of Canada in its interim report: First, that government regulation of production and exchange should occur only when alternative methods are not available or are ineffective, except in matters affecting health, safety or economic fraud-and I explained the matter more fully in the resolution stage-and, second, that the growth of government bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum consistent with efficient and effective administration of the legislation.


Erik Nielsen: Will there be a final report on consumer affairs by the Economic Council of Canada?


John Napier Turner: I cannot speak for the council, but since they use the word "interim" I hope they also contemplate the word "final".
I have already told the house that the steps we are taking here constitute a reorganization of the existing responsibilities of government. I also said that after deducting the revenues of this department from its expenditures the net cost to the taxpayer this fiscal year will be less than $2 million. Having read Hansard before I came to the house I will not suggest that this is an insignificant sum of money. However, when it is considered in relation to the $9.5 billion in the estimates, we are not going to be one of the big spenders in government. I do not expect any appreciable increase in our net expenditures as a result of this legislation, if it is to be adopted by parliament.
We intend to organize the department in the most effective way to provide a contemporary response to consumer and corporate problems. We plan to integrate our work in
October 17. 1967

Corporate and Consumer Affairs corporate and consumer affairs in order to achieve a common direction of policy wherever this is feasible. We intend to apply the most modern concepts in management available to us and to introduce the most up to date budgeting and program analysis. We have this opportunity. This will require a study of the costs and benefits of the programs that we inaugurate and implement. From time to time we will be seeking both internal, within the government service, and external, outside the government service, advice on these subjects.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Now, most of the functions of the consumer branch are set out in clause 6 of the bill. I am only going to deal with this clause in a general manner under the rules, Mr. Speaker, knowing a later opportunity will be given to me at the committee stage to deal with it in more detail. Clause 6(l)(a) indicates that the minister shall:
(a)	initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer.
This provision implements the recommendation of the joint committee of the house and Senate as found on pages 3451 and 3452 of their report. Then, 6(l)(b) refers to coordinating programs of the government of Canada that are designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer. This recommendation flows directly from the interim report of the Economic Council of Canada, page 20. I need not recite the appropriate words in the report because they are available to all members.
Then, clause 6(1)(c) refers to promoting and encouraging the institution of practices or conduct tending to the better protection of the Canadian consumer and co-operation with provincial governments or agencies, bodies or persons in any programs having similar objects. This provision flows from the recommendation found in the interim report of the Economic Council of Canada, pages 27 and 28, under the heading, "Federal-provincial cooperation and private activities". I think hon. members will be able to trace those recommendations through into the language of the bill.
Clauses 6(l)(d) provides that the department will have responsibility for undertaking, recommending or assisting in programs to assist the Canadian consumer to be more fully informed about goods and services offered to the consumer. This factor was conceded to be paramount by the Economic Council of Canada, as will be found by a reference to its


report, pages 20 and 21 under the heading "Information and research". There was a recommendation on this point as well by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons as found at page 3453 of their report.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 6(2) gives the department responsibility for undertaking research for the purpose of carrying out its duties and functions, not only those related to this section but also the other powers which are listed in clause 5. This provision flows from the recommendation appearing on page 21 of the interim report of the Economic Council of Canada.
I have recited these references only to indicate that, as best we can, we have attempted to implement in this legislation being submitted to the house those recommendations of the joint committee of the parliament of Canada and of the body set up by parliament to give interim and long term advice to the government, the Economic Council of Canada. I want to say that the Economic Council indicated one of the main impressions it received was that government programs relating to consumer affairs lacked any effective means of insuring co-ordination of the administration of those programs. This sometimes resulted in no one taking responsibility for a program or, what was even worse, more than one department carrying out similar programs.
A striking example of the duplication of programs exists, as the council illustrated, in the inspection of retail stores. These stores are subject to inspection by a number of different government agencies. I feel a consolidation of these inspection services would be a more efficient alternative than having several government inspectors go through stores or warehouses at various times. This would get the job done more cheaply and more effectively.
As I said at the resolution stage, we are not making any pre-judgment of the eventual locus of the administration of the various spheres of consumer interest within the federal government. We have set up an interdepartmental committee at the highest official level embracing those departments currently having certain responsibilities for consumers. When these programs in the various departments of the federal government are analysed, we will be in a better position to make a more rational judgment as to where and how they ought to be administered.
October 17, 1967

This interdepartmental committee has already begun an examination of those areas in which duplication of functions exists. Again, I apologize to the house for taking so much of its time this evening, but I believe I owe a duty to this chamber to explain as fully as I can, within the limits of the patience of my fellow members, just what our views are about a relatively new orientation of government powers at the federal level.


Erik Nielsen: Before the minister passes to another subject, I wonder if he would permit me to ask him, when he refers to the setting up of the interdepartmental committee at the highest official level, whether he means the committee has been set up at the ministerial level or at the official level within the depart-nent?


John Napier Turner: The latter, Mr. Speaker, at the deputy minister level. We contemplate, of course, setting up subcommittees below that level. It is obvious that if policy matters flow from the advice of the interdepartmental committee, the ministers will have to pass upon the advice given by the interdepartmental committee.


Erik Nielsen: The Economic Council of
Canada recommended a study at the ministerial level and I was wondering why the government chose not to follow that advice.


John Napier Turner: That is true; as I have said, if decisions have to be made as a result of the advice flowing from the interdepartmental committee, then ministers will have to meet and make recommendations to cabinet on the results of those deliberations.
In respect of consumer information, it is proposed when the consumer branch is established that officers will receive complaints, queries and appeals for assistance on consumer matters. I hope that they will analyse these, prepare replies, and where possible forward them to the appropriate departments or agencies; categorize and identify recurring consumer problems and maintain a check on consumer service effectiveness. We have already started a pilot project along this line by employing existing departmental personnel temporarily assigned to this task. As I said at the resolution stage, the authority under the British North America Act and under the interpretation given to it as it affects consumer affairs, is divided. I hope the department will provide a central focus or clearing house in those areas of consumer complaint or query that involve the provinces.

Corporate and Consumer Affairs
We hope that eventually we will have a reciprocal network of information centres on this subject across the country. Among other things, the interdepartmental committee will be giving, and is giving, attention to the coordination of existing consumer information programs within the federal government. I hope the department will be able to bring problems and complaints to the attention of business people. A great many of these problems can be solved by businessmen, in their own interests, once they are aware of them.
The consumer must be equipped, by all reasonable means, to make a policy choice and a judgment on prices. This will be part of our aim, although we do not ever consider we will be in a position to tell retailers what to sell, manufacturers what to make or consumers what to buy. We do hope the consumer will know the price he is paying, the terms upon which he is paying interest if his purchase is on the instalment plan rather than for cash; that the advertising represents the true facts; that the package contains the goods advertised on the label and the amount of goods in those packages, the quality of those goods as reflected by the package and label as well.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Like $2 wheat.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Yukon knows that the season in his part of the world is short enough that he is really not much authority on that. However, his memory is a long one.
I feel it is important that the department have particular concern for the various special minority groups of this country who need more attention than others. I think in particular of the low income consumer who must use his dollar with effectiveness. He must gain fair access to quality goods at low prices and be protected against unfair selling and credit practices. There is the elderly consumer who has special health, housing and nutritional needs-needs shown by those with disabilities. Then there is the rural consumer who has difficulty in gaining full access to the urban market because of the distance he or she is from that market. It will be our concern to search out and explore the ways of servicing these particular problems and gaining the co-operation of all governments and private groups in their solution.
The Economic Council pointed out that one key piece of federal legislation for protection
3214	COMMONS
Corporate and Consumer Affairs
of the consumer is the group of general Criminal Code provisions against fraud, deception and misleading sales techniques.

It stated that the application of the legislation-


Edward Nasserden: What about election promises?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member is an authority on that subject, and I would yield to him if the debate should ever take a course along those lines.

The council stated that the application of that legislation has been left mainly to the provincial governments although a good number of federal agencies are effectively responsible for the implementation of some provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Economic Council recommended, Mr. Speaker, that legislation be drafted to create, within the department of corporate and consumer affairs, an administrative body whose main duty would be to implement effectively those provisions.
Besides the general provisions of the Criminal Code, other acts deal with similar problems. These are, for instance, section 33C of the Combines Investigation Act which forbids fallacious publicity on prices; the Trade Marks Act which forbids dishonest trade practices in general; the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations which concern fraud in the sale of food and drugs; and the legislation on trade marks and proper labelling which forbid false or misleading descriptions of specific goods.

The joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons also raised the question of research into the economic role of advertising. The committee indicated that there is clearly a wide spectrum of opinion on the social benefits of advertising and the impact of advertising expenditures on the cost of consumer goods. It also indicated that it did not wish to make any recommendations respecting the control of advertising expenditures.
Nevertheless. Mr. Speaker, it was concerned about the volume of advertising whose sole or primary purpose was to create consumer preference for a particular brand of

DEBATES	October 17, 1967
some staple product on the basis of trivial variations. The committee also expressed the opinion that an extensive program of compulsory grade labelling for common consumer goods would encourage some reduction in socially wasteful advertising costs. We have begun to take a preliminary look at this subject, Mr. Speaker.
Two or three weeks ago I had occasion to speak on this subject to the Institute of Canadian Advertising. I intend to maintain the dialogue with the advertising industry and to pursue the research I have just described.
The special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit and prices also saw a need for an expert group within our department to investigate any merchandising practices which take advantage of or mislead consumers. It gave as an example of an area which would merit attention, section 306 of the Criminal Code, which deals with misleading advertising. We have already initiated a study of this whole area and we consulted provincial officials during the recent conference of the commissioners for uniformity of legislation. This subject of misleading advertising will be one of our first priorities.
The Economic Council in its report noted that the government was currently giving intensive study to its policies and programs in the field of standards and grading. It commended the proposed establishment of a new widely representative body at the national level to develop a more co-ordinated approach to standards work with business and government working together. A standards council of Canada is now being developed and this department, under the scrutiny of parliament, will I hope play an active part in it.
In its report the Economic Council quite correctly emphasized that all of the present federal government activities in the consumer field have evolved in the light of the division of legislative responsibility under the Canadian constitution. In some cases, such as weights and measures, the British North America Act has assigned specific responsibility to the federal parliament. In other cases the activities arise from the more general federal responsibilities for criminal law. A leading example here is the Food and Drugs Act. Still other resopnsibilities have developed under federal authority for regulating trade and commerce of an interprovincial or international nature. Typically these activities must take into account provincial legislation
October 17. 1967	COMMONS
in the same product areas. I think the area of agriculture is an important domain of concurrent jurisdiction.
There are also many areas of concern to consumers which come entirely within the constitutional responsibilities of the individual province, especially those which are closely related to property and civil rights. These include the nature of contractual relationships between buyers and sellers and many of the distributorship arrangements which are made at the retail level. Provincial authority also extends to the regulation of many forms of commerce conducted on a purely local or provincial basis and to the incorporation of companies with provincial objects. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have delegated to municipalities responsibility for a variety of laws affecting the consumer interest.
I have more to say, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that in order to give some sequence to tomorrow's debate this might be a useful place for me to call it ten o'clock, if that is agreeable to hon. members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago it was reported that Mr. David DePoe of the Company of Young Canadians made a speech at McGill University at Montreal in which he attacked the university administration. According to the report, Mr. DePoe named the McGill directors, citing their business associations, their clubs and so on, and then said the following: "It is about bloody well time students got democratic control of the universities. These corporations that support our society also support the war in Viet Nam, limit individual freedom and offer no human alternatives".
Following the report of his speech I rose in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. DePoe was carrying out his functions with the Company of Young Canadians when he made this speech.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
While Mr. DePoe and others may have good grounds for criticizing the administration of
DEBATES	3215
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion McGill and other universities, it is unacceptable that they should do so as part of their function as members of the Company of Young Canadians. I submit that they ought not to use their position with the Company of Young Canadians to seek speaking engagements such as I have referred to.
The company was founded little more than a year ago by legislation passed in this house. During the debate I spoke in favour of the bill. I, with others, envisaged the Company of Young Canadians as being similar to the peace corps, or VISTA, in the United States, or to CUSO in Canada. The purposes of the company are set out as follows in sections 14 and 15 of the act. Section 14 reads:
The objects of the Company are to support, encourage and develop programs for social, economic and community development in Canada or abroad through voluntary service.
I shall summarize section 15, which reads:
In furtherance of its objects, the Company may ...
Do the following:
(a)	engage in community development work ...
(b)	organize and carry out programs designed primarily to widen the social and economic opportunities of young people . ..
(c)	organize and carry out programs to assist young people who are economically or socially handicapped ...
(d)	assist vocational training projects ...
(e)	undertake recreation programs for young people . ..
(f)	undertake programs in public health ...
(g)	engage in the teaching of home economics in areas of deprivation ...
(h)	organize and carry out programs for the development of co-operative undertakings ...
(i)	organize and carry out programs to assist the peoples of other countries to raise their standards of living ...
(j)	generally do at home or abroad all such things ... that would tend to further the objects of the Company.
Clearly, there is nothing in the purposes which I summarized that would allow for the type of activity which Mr. DePoe has carried on at McGill; for that matter nothing in the purposes of the legislation permits his activities in Yorkville and elsewhere. These comments might apply to the activities of other members of the Company of Young Canadians in other parts of the country.
I fully supported and still support the principle of the company, though I have been most disappointed to see some of its members behaving in a way that is completely incompatible with its purposes. Many of the company's members, and this includes Mr. DePoe, by their appearance and activities have portrayed a deplorable image of the company to
October 17, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Canadian people. They have done this to the extent that those who originally supported the concept of the Company of Young Canadians now have grave second thoughts. What was conceived in idealism to help the less fortunate has been twisted and frustrated by a group of cynical reactionaries, dropouts who are so full of self pity, pessimism and cynicism that they are not able to help others.
Hon. members ought to remember that Canadian taxpayers support the Company of Young Canadians. Many of our older citizens, many fathers of families, will find it hard to understand why their hard earned tax dollar supports a group which engages in the activities I have spoken of.
The Company of Young Canadians was created to help the underprivileged, unfortunate, illiterate and poor. Many of the company's members are carrying out its objects, though at present many more of its members are not interested in doing so. I urge the government to introduce reforms rapidly, before it is too late. Basic to any reform ought to be change of personnel. I see no future for the company so long as Mr. DePoe and others like him continue to play a leading role. It will not exist for long. The company has a great purpose and it does not deserve to be mutilated, as it has been. Of course in a free society one cannot object to the type of speech Mr. DePoe makes; but he should not make it as an agent or employee of a crown company, one that is supported by Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
Mr. DePoe was personally invited by a student group to inaugurate the "Hyde Park" program of speakers at McGill University. He accepted their invitation and spoke about student participation in the management of the university. He was speaking as a Canadian citizen and as a young person concerned with education. When Mr, DePoe criticized the administration of McGill University he was not speaking on behalf of the company.
May I repeat that the foregoing is the reply given to me by the Company of Young Canadians. I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. I can assure him that his comments, so carefully prepared, will be brought to the personal attention of the Prime Minister.



AIR TRANSPORT-SERVICE TO ATLANTIC AREA BY CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES

Robert Jardine McCleave: If a person should decide to travel by air from St. John's to Ottawa, as many of my colleagues in parliament do, that person would, after leaving St. John's, have to land at Gander, then at Stephenville, then at Sydney, then at Halifax, then at Moncton or Saint John, then at Montreal, and finally at Ottawa. This adds up to seven landings for a flight from the capital of Newfoundland to the capital of Canada.
When I placed these various points on the map this afternoon, indicating them by dots, I found I had drawn an exact outline of the big dipper, so I call this run "the big dipper run"-an understandable term because whenever the plane comes to an airport it dips down and lands.
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), fresh in his new position, whether he or the government would not look again at the policy which precludes Canadian Pacific Airlines from serving Atlantic Canada. The minister was prepared to reply, I believe, or at least to indicate some kind of answer, but was unable to do so at that time. I believe his parliamentary secretary is here tonight, and may give an answer.
I do not quarrel with the service which Air Canada provides Atlantic Canada but I do suggest there is some virtue in competition, because I do not think any competitive airline would take too long to solve a problem which involves people making seven stops while travelling what is in modern terms the relatively short distance between St. John's, Newfoundland, and the capital city of this country.
Air travel, as we know, is on the increase. I asked a question earlier this year in an attempt to ascertain the figures. These are printed in Hansard of January 9 at pages 11518 and 11519 and they show that in 1956 on an average 5,664 Canadians were in the air daily. Five years later that number had increased to 10,120 and in the first three quarters of 1966, again five years later, the daily average was 15,234. Thus the numbers travelling have increased by approximately 5,000 every five years or, to put it another way, by approximately 1,000 a year. So there is much more air travel by people of this country and consequently, I would suggest, more business by which Air Canada, Canadian Pacific and other airlines as well could profit.
We have in Halifax, or about 25 miles from that city, one of the world's great airports, an
October 17, 1967	COMMONS
international airport, capable of handling a tremendous amount of traffic, which is only partly utilized at the present time. I hope the government will not only allow Canadian Pacific to undertake profitable runs such as the run between Montreal and Halifax, but that it will consider requiring the company to take on, at the same time, some of the Newfoundland services as well, thus sharing the responsibility in eastern Canada as many people wish they would do. It would not be a case of enjoying only the cream of the business.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I am sure the hon. member will recall that the then minister of transport announced last spring a formula effective immediately which would grant C.P.A. additional transcontinental routes between Vancouver and Toronto-Montreal. The general aircraft shortage is such that C.P.A. will not be in a position to take up its franchise until some time next year. The general situation with regard to availability of aircraft has not appreciably changed. Therefore the question of additional services by the company becomes more or less academic, although the situation of course may change in the not too distant future.
The provisions of the Aeronautics Act make it possible for any carrier, including C.P.A., to apply for additional routes at any time and the application would be dealt with on its merits in terms of the economic need and economic justification by the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. Of course the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) will be aware of the fact that basic considerations in dealing with applications of this sort are the volume of traffic available to sustain new service, and whether new service would put existing services into an uneconomic or more uneconomic position.
Service to the maritimes hitherto has been lower in density than elsewhere in Canada and a relevant question would be, therefore, whether volume of traffic could sustain competitive service. This would be a matter for determination for the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. A further relevant factor which would require consideration is whether, in the event there is enough traffic to sustain competition, the competition should be provided by C.P.A. or by regional carriers who have already developed service in the Atlantic provinces and
DEBATES	3217
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion who have legitimate aspirations for expansion. It would be for the commission to determine whether the traffic volume is sufficient to sustain competition, but it is quite obvious that when this stage is reached in the first instance there would not be room for competition with existing services by both C.P.A. and regional carriers.
Now, if C.P.A. were given the nod, a fledgling maritime industry for which the hon. member should have a consuming interest could be effectively killed. Finally, there are added to this provisions under the Aeronautics Act by which these matters can be brought forward by airline initiative for consideration by the commission at any time.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION-SUGGESTED SURVEY TO ASCERTAIN QUEBEC OPINION

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, last week on orders of the day I attempted to raise a question which had reference to the subject of Canadian unity. The question was not accepted at that time, or at least I did not secure an answer to it. I gave notice that I would like to raise it during this period.
As I recall the wording of my question I asked whether in view of the widespread concern about Canadian unity at this time and the lack of actual firm knowledge about the sentiments of the majority of the people of Quebec in this regard, could consideration be given to taking the pulse of the people of Quebec by holding a public opinion poll concerning the matters which they thought should be involved in the question of national unity.
Since that time two members of the house gave us the benefit of their opinions on this subject. I should like to quote from a report of a recent speech given by the leader of the New Democratic party in Quebec, Mr. Robert Cliche. What he had to say is what I had in mind in respect of this issue. He said:
Some people speak more and more about constitutional changes but those who would be called on to bring about this revolution,-
That is, the ordinary people of Quebec.
-to participate in it, know nothing about it. They preoccupy themselves very little with the various opinions, harnessed as they are to their daily problems and the economic battle.
In the interval between the time I raised the original question and tonight I have had time to give further thought to the general proposition I attempted to put forward. I would now like to boost briefly the scope of
October 17, 1967
3218	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion my original question to the point where I would ask if consideration could be given to granting the people of Canada an opportunity to express themselves on the issue of Canadian unity through a public opinion poll.
I do not think we can say we have failed, but to this date this parliament and the provincial legislators have not come up with leadership or clear policy on this question. Since this is so, it might be advantageous for us to consider taking a poll of the people themselves whereby they can give leadership to us. Therefore I ask that consideration be given to consulting with the provinces, with a view to seeking the views of the Canadian people on all the issues involved in this very grievous question that affects us today, the question of national unity.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the B. and B. royal commission is now seized of the responsibility of reporting on the feelings of Canadians in relation to this very important question. Undoubtedly in the course of its work it will have conducted surveys which will be incorporated in its report, which report the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) hopes may be available by the end of November.
Surveys on the question of national unity have been commissioned by private concerns from time to time. There have been such

surveys in the past; no doubt such surveys will be made in the future. One might ask as a principle of political economy whether it is sound to conduct government through the expediency of surveys. Certainly there are those who would urge that this is not conducive to a healthy democratic process. Moreover, it would be difficult for the federal government to get involved directly in this field without accusations of partiality, and the like.
The views of the Prime Minister and of his government are so clearly established that national unity really is not in question. Political parties, members of parliament and constituency associations can add to reflect the feelings of the public in most questions. It is by these soundings that policies are influenced. My hon. friend represents a constituency, and I represent a constituency, and collectively we all offer a resounding endorsement in this chamber for the continued unity of our nation.
May I say in response to the hon. member's important query that as long as we are all of one mind in this matter, as we are, with almost complete unity, this would not appear to be the kind of question that should be put before a province, or all of the country, by way of referendum.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Wednesday, October 18, 1967