1967-11-07

LAY-OFFS OF RAILWAY AND OTHER EMPLOYEES-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by my hon. friend from York South, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the extensive lay-offs of railway employees and others which are causing widespread hardship and insecurity for thousands of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be helpful to hear the hon. member on the question of urgency of debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to make three points. The first is that there is no other opportunity to raise this critical matter, in view of the fact that the estimates for the present fiscal year have already been passed. It is true there is a supply motion yet to be called but we have no notice from the government as to when it will be called. This is the only way this matter can be discussed, and we think it is important that it should be discussed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)
Second, I want to point out that this is a matter of national importance in that it affects almost every area of Canada. Some 4,000 railway employees have already been laid off. Many of these may be permanent lay-offs. In some circles it is thought that lay-offs may reach 10,000 before the spring. The distribution of the lay-offs to date by the Canadian National Railways alone has been 450 men in the Atlantic region, 460 in the St. Lawrence area, 500 in the Winnipeg-lakehead-Saskatchewan area, 640 in British Columbia and 640 in Ontario. Therefore it is seen that this problem spreads from coast to coast and is not merely a local one.
The third point I want to make is that this is a matter of great urgency. Four thousand men laid off on four days notice involves a great deal of hardship for those men and
their families and a considerable dislocation of the economy of the communities in which they live. I want to point out it is an urgent matter. It seems to me that at this time the House of Commons, the people of Canada and particularly the men involved have a right to know what steps the government intends taking to cope with this problem, whether any legislation is in contemplation, and what programs the government has in mind to prevent further lay-offs and to provide employment for the men already laid off. It seems to me this matter cannot be delayed, it ought to be discussed, and it should be discussed today because it is of the utmost importance not only to the people involved but to the Canadian economy generally.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this adjournment motion. I think the subject is national in scope and in the last few days has taken on extreme urgency. I agree that there does not appear to be any other opportunity to discuss this matter now that the estimates of the Department of Transport are out of the way, and there does not seem to be any proposed legislation on which a discussion could take place.
I notice, as recorded in Hansard for October 30, that in answer to a question from the hon. member for Halifax the Minister of Transport promised that some statement would be made on freight rate increases. We are still waiting for it; in fact many of us expected that some sort of announcement would be made today. The minister himself has admitted that one reason for these layoffs has been the increases in freight rates.
For some strange reason the lay-offs started in the maritimes. It is the same old story, but now they have spread across the country. Some 500 men have been laid off in Winnipeg, and I know there are rumours out there of even greater lay-offs. The matter is urgent. It needs some attention. In reply to a question in the house the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said he felt that the notice given employees was not sufficient, and we know there is an argument as to whether the agreements between the unions and the railways insist on a 90 day notice.
November 7, 1967
3964	COMMONS DEBATES
Lay-Offs of Railway and Other Employees
I for one feel that this adjournment motion is well founded, but failing that we are counting on some sort of reply from the minister. I take this opportunity to point out that in my opinion this is one of the most serious matters we have had to face in the maritimes. This whole transportation problem, of which the lay-offs in Moncton are a part and concerning which a protest was made the other night, gets to the roots of confederation promises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) did not deem it advisable to give us a copy of his motion in French but, In any event, the question he brings up in his motion is very important and most urgent, since it concerns the massive lay-offs at the C.N.R. Such lay-offs create economic chaos and brings insecurity to several families. Indeed, hundreds of employees were dismissed on the 1st of November and I am told that others will be laid off by the 15th. Now, this creates an alarming situation for people who have worked for the C.N.R. for 15, 18 or 20 years.
Just the same, Mr. Speaker, I feel that those lay-offs are not taking place only in the C.N.R., but in many other fields throughout the country. If an emergency debate were to be held-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member at this time. I know that he has some interesting points to submit to his colleagues, but I remind him that he must restrict his remarks to the question of urgency of the debate. He must only deal with the necessity of adjourning the regular business of the house to discuss, not any other matter, but the definite matter referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


David Réal Caouette: I thank Your Honour for this information and I shall restrict my remarks to the terms of the motion.
I simply wanted to draw a parallel between the urgency of this matter and that of other economic situations in our country related to precisely the same state of affairs. Even if we were to discuss these lay-offs all afternoon, it would not give work to C.N.R. employees tomorrow morning.
These people are suffering the consequences of an obsolete economic system

that applies not only to them but to the whole population. That is why I say it is not so urgent to discuss the question of the railroad employees because we will not solve it this afternoon, but we should face the whole economic questions in Canada and let the government or the Department of Transport discuss with the authorities of the C.N.R. anything relevant to this particular case so as to find the means to restore order in the economic field.
So, I do not believe that the urgency is as pressing as the motion now before us suggests.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, once again we are confronted with this same matter of urgency of debate. I imagine the first question we must consider, and which I hope Your Honour is considering in respect of your ruling, is when would we have otherwise an opportunity to discuss this very serious national problem. The leader of the New Democratic party has dealt with the lay-offs on the railways and has shown that this is not a problem which is local in nature but is one which exists across the country. There have been 800 lay-offs in the city of Calgary alone. This is a matter which is national in scope and I ask, when can we discuss it. I think we must take into consideration the fact that because of the new rules and the guillotine method many questions remain unanswered; opposition and other members of parliament are unable to obtain answers from the minister.
I support the motion of the leader of the New Democratic party in this regard and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should allow this debate. Not only is this matter national in scope, it is also all wrapped up in the problems in respect of the loss of the coal markets, the loss of the wheat markets, the high freight rates and so on. All these things are interrelated with the lay-offs. The railway companies have no work because there are no wheat or coal markets. This in turn can also be related to the comparative cost of transporting coal in Canada and in the United States. One cannot isolate these things. We have not had the opportunity of obtaining answers from the government because of the new rules.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are prepared to support this motion this afternoon. Having regard to the seasons we have
November 7, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3965
in Canada it is particularly a reason for great regret when lay-offs coincide with the beginning of what will be a difficult winter for many people. The days this house will be in session between now and the Christmas recess are few indeed. The program of legislation outlined is extensive, but not all of it is relevant to the immediate well being of the Canadian public. Certainly the debate that would follow the acceptance of this motion would be pertinent to the plight of a number of Canadian people as well as the Canadian economy.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, there is a parallel which may well have occurred to Your Honour and which I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention in connection with the motion now before us. The house will recall that approximately a month ago a situation arose in Sydney in respect of the closing of the Dosco steel mill involving 3,000 steel workers. At that time the matter was declared to be of urgency, notwithstanding the fact that it affected only one particular community. In the situation today there are 4,000 men involved on a national scale. The parallel seems to suggest itself in support of allowing this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that we have heard sufficient argument to allow the Chair to render a judgment or an expression of opinion. Are hon. members prepared to hear what I have to say at this moment?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was hesitating because I thought the Minister of National Health and Welfare was going to speak. I will yield to him and speak later if he wishes to speak now. Since the government house leader does not accept my offer to speak before I do, I will refute his arguments before he advances them.
It is quite clear that what we have to concern ourselves about is urgency of debate. In addition to the rules and precedents we have in Beauchesne's fourth edition and in other places we now have a very useful supplement in the form of an article on this question which was written by Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, M.P., Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. It appeared in the July issue of "The Parliamentarian" which is the journal of the parliaments of the Commonwealth. I dearly wish I had time to put the whole article on the record because it would be useful to do so; then it would be translated into French as well. May I read two or
Lay-Offs of Railway and Other Employees three sentences for Your Honour's guidance. First may I agree, as I am sure Your Honour will, with the opening sentence of the article, which reads:
The decision as to whether or not a motion to adjourn the house should be allowed for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance is one which taxes the judgment of the Speaker to the utmost.
Having said that, Your Honour in this article got around to the specific matters which have to be weighed in arriving at this decision, and you then said this about the Speaker:
He must be satisfied that the matter raised is one of genuine urgency and that no other opportunity for raising it would occur in the normal course of parliamentary business.
I suggest that is a very clear statement, and that this motion meets both those conditions; it deals with a matter of genuine urgency, and there is no foreseeable opportunity for discussing it in the normal course of parliamentary business. Later in the same article Your Honour said this:
Urgency alone is not sufficient to qualify an emergency adjournment motion for acceptance. The matter must be one of overriding national urgency and not merely of regional urgency-
It has been clearly demonstrated that this is an issue of concern not only to one region or another but that it is one of national urgency. Then, Mr. Speaker, in an excellent concluding paragraph to this article you said:
In these days of heavy parliamentary pressure an emergency procedure is essential to ensure that an opportunity for debating a genuinely urgent and sudden crisis can always be found. The Speaker has an important duty to ensure that the procedure is not abused-
Speaking from the opposition side, I agree.
-but it is equally important that he should protect the right of the private member to secure an emergency debate when the circumstances justify it, no matter how pressing the demands of government business may be.
I suggest that the motion presented today meets the criteria which Your Honour has laid down. This is an urgent question, it is one of national importance, there is no immediate opportunity to deal with it, and it is the type of question for which this kind of motion is provided.
Let me give some examples of the kind of thing we ought to be able to find out; namely, to what extent are these lay-offs seasonal, to what extent are they caused by technological change, and what are the steps we should be taking to deal with them? I submit this is the kind of information that could
3966	COMMONS
Lay-Offs of Railway and Other Employees only come out in the sort of debate for which we are asking. Therefore because of the urgency, because this motion meets the criteria that Your Honour laid down in this excellent article, I hope you will find the motion to be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contribution to this interesting discussion, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would remind the hon. member that the words he has quoted were spoken ex cathedra and therefore I do not feel bound by such obiter dicta. I feel that a much better authority is Beauchesne's fourth edition. Perhaps hon. members would allow me to refer to citation 100, which is well known and has been quoted in circumstances such as these. This citation has been referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam. Citation 100 says:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough-
As has been said before, "early enough" is an absolutely relative term. One may ask how early is "early enough"? It has been mentioned that although the estimates have been completed there is to be a supply debate before the 27th of this month, that is within the next 19 days. Of course this is the outside limit, and debate on this motion might be had before that time by arrangement. In any event, it would definitely be brought before the house by that date. I have some doubts, therefore, whether the motion qualifies in view of this situation. I would also remind hon. members of paragraph 8 of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition wherein a former Speaker is quoted as having said:
I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I would think this citation covers the situation. For the guidance of hon. members I should like to refer them to an even more eminent authority, and quote from a ruling made by Mr. Speaker in the year 1961 following an adjournment motion proposed by

DEBATES	November 7. 1967
the then hon. member for Laurier. This motion had reference to a matter of definite urgent public importance, namely the displacement of C.N.R. employees. I am reading from Hansard of March 13, 1961 at page 2907. The Speaker then said:
As hon. members will recall, the matter of layoffs of employees of the Canadian National Railways arises very frequently during the question period, and the minister is always under the necessity of having to say that he will inquire from the C.N.R. to find out what their policy is and that he will bring back an answer to the house. It seems to me that citation 100, which indicates that such matters should relate to the administrative responsibility of the government, might be applied in this case in the sense that the responsibility is indirectly through parliament and not one on which a debate on a motion of this kind could have any direct effect or result. It would be necessary for parliament to amend its Canadian National Railways legislation, if an enforceable decision is to be made or an effective remedy applied.
The Speaker concluded that he had to refuse the hon. member leave to make the motion.
In view of this precedent and in view of the citations I have quoted I do not think it is possible for me to accept the motion advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister complete confidence in the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I would be very glad to answer that question, but of course it is out of order.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that the Speaker did not voice an objection I would assume that that answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps Your Honour will give a ruling on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before making the ruling I would have to hear the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I was still reflecting on standing order 26 when the question was asked.
November 7, 1967	COMMONS


Michael Starr: My question to the Prime Minister was the following. Has the Prime Minister complete confidence in the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more confidence in it than some hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without ruling on whether the question is in order I have some doubts about it because it seems to be very general in scope. I believe an answer to the question would be more appropriate by way of a statement on motions. The hon. member might want to ask a related question rather than a supplementary one.


Michael Starr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the Prime Minister whether he will give to this house a full, frank and clear statement dealing with the charges of mismanagement in the C.B.C. as voiced by the Secretary of State; and will he explain to this house and to the people what has been done to deal with this situation in an organization spending this year $140 million of public money?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I were to answer that question on orders of the day I would probably take up the 40 minute period allowed.


Michael Starr: Will the Prime Minister say whether he will make this concise and clear statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope to do that, Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate occasion.


Michael Starr: I can only assume from these evasive answers that the Prime Minister has no intention of doing so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to the widespread lay-offs of railway employees and the fact that the decline in the number of employees on the railroads over the years seems to be much greater than any decline in the volume of freight handled, which would indicate that technological factors are
DEBATES	3967
Inquiries of the Ministry involved. In view of this does the government intend to introduce legislation in the near future to implement the recommendations of the Freedman report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question dealing with the legislative intentions of the government and I cannot answer it on orders of the day, except to inform my hon. friend that we are aware of the seriousness of this immediate problem. We are also aware of the importance of dealing with some of the legislation which is already on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister, then, if the government is making any study to ascertain the extent to which these lay-offs are due to a decline in the volume of freight handled and, on the other hand, the extent to which they are due to technological changes and the modernization of railway equipment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are very seriously concerned with this matter in all its aspects, and are examining it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us what are the results of this investigation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to announce them in due course.


Thomas Miller Bell: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport with reference to these railway lay-offs. When will the proposed announcement be made with regard to the matter of freight rates, which the minister admitted is at the root of the lay-off problem?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I am not sure that I understood the latter part of my hon. friend's question, and I am not sure of the correctness of his earlier suggestion that I had indicated that the reduction in traffic was due to the increased freight rates. What I did indicate to the house the other day was that the reduction was due to reduced traffic. This problem is national in scope, particularly with respect to the volume of loading of bulk commodities.
In so far as the statement that I have indicated I hope to make to the house is concerned, I cannot say for sure when it will

November 7, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry be ready but perhaps quite soon, in due course or even sooner.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether the union representing the C.N.R. employees has made representations following those lay-offs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can only say from memory that I think there have been some communications from the unions. I cannot indicate their exact nature and scope without referring to the flies.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister see to it that the lay-offs are held up until this proposal is brought forward in the house, as he promised on October 30 last?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a good deal of this unemployment is due to the greatly reduced export of wheat from this country, is the government taking any special measures or has it any plans to increase our exports of wheat, which will solve this problem to a considerable extent as well as the problem faced by the western farmers?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows as well as anybody else of the effective work performed by the wheat board, and of the great confidence which the western farm community places in the wheat board. I can assure him that they are leaving no stone unturned.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
When a federal pension of $75 is granted to a Canadian citizen and a supplementary amount is paid by the province, is the federal government contributing to the supplementary amount paid by the province?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the present United States-Canada auto pact expires at the end of next month, is the minister or any member of his department taking steps to renegotiate this agreement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman wished to convey the impression that the agreement expires next month. In fact it is to continue indefinitely. Under the arrangements with the United States there is a provision that prior to the end of this year there will be a review of the progress made to date, and arrangements are now being made to begin this review not later than next month.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of this renegotiation or review can the minister assure this house that parliament will have an opportunity to debate the agreement before it is signed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I tried to point out, Mr. Speaker, the agreement has been signed and it is not to be resigned. What is in contemplation is a review of the progress made to date with our United States counterparts.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry. When the review is made, will the minister bring in a report and give parliament an opportunity to debate that report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should be glad to make a report to parliament on completion of the review.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. My recollection is that the minister undertook, before the period for review was up, that this Canada-United States auto agreement would be submitted to a committee of the house. Does he still intend to carry out that commitment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is not the same as that of the hon. gentleman. I am not too clear what he meant by "when the period of review is up", since the review
November 7, 1967

has not yet started. In line with the request made by the Leader of the Opposition, on completion of the review I will undertake to make a report to parliament.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.']
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the legal decision has been handed down by the Supreme Court regarding offshore mineral rights, is the government prepared to begin negotiations with the provinces that will provide the political agreement necessary for the orderly development of these resources?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will be considering at once the decision by the Supreme Court and all its implications. An undertaking has been given by the federal government that discussions could take place with the provinces after the legal situation had been cleared up. The legal situation is now clear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, will the government consider asking the same court for an opinion with regard to the other provinces, since this decision affects British Columbia alone?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to look into that question to see how far the present decision covers all interests.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Does the right hon. gentleman not think he might discuss this question usefully in Toronto when that conference is taking place at the end of this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not believe a provincial conference would be a very good place for me to discuss this subject.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: My
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the decision arrived at today by the Supreme Court, does the Prime Minister intend now to bring into the house at the next session a resolution by which

Inquiries of the Ministry parliament will give authority to the government to ratify this convention which gives us control of the bottom of the sea?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question following the same line but on another matter. In view of the importance of the resources at the bottom of the sea, when the Prime Minister is looking into this question of the ratification of the convention would he take into account the calling of an international conference to get some sort of rule of law among the nations for the development of the bottom of the sea? It was Canada's proposal in 1958 that got us this far.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: As a
result of this Supreme Court decision will the federal government now give consideration to the possibility of exploring and developing these offshore assets, either alone or in conjunction with private enterprise, so that all Canadians can share in these assets which now belong to all the people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said we would begin at once to study this decision in all its implications, including those mentioned by my hon. friend.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: My question to the Prime Minister is this. Will the Prime Minister undertake that in negotiations or conferences with the provinces the federal government will not use this decision as a club to hold over the heads of the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Will
the Prime Minister assure the house that the present offshore explorations in British Columbia will not be adversely affected by the Supreme Court decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they will be encouraged by that decision.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: wish to direct a question to that genial target

November 7, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry of the opposition, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the appointment of General Albert Schnez as commander of the NATO forces in Europe, central sector, which includes Canadian forces, and in view of the fact that comments on this appointment in the West German news magazine Der Spiegel caused the West German defence minister Gerhard Schroeder to defend the appointment by saying "We can just ignore these nazi rumours; all this stuff is no longer important", is the Secretary of State for External Affairs happy and proud to have Canadian troops and some 2,000 NATO planes, mostly equipped with nuclear weapons, under the command of this former well known high ranking nazi officer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask for an expression of opinion. By the same token I do not believe he can ask for an expression of the feelings of the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I rephrase my question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether he considers this gentleman quite competent from our point of view to lead these forces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should have liked to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the decrease of 21 per cent in housing completions in the first eight months of this year, according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics, compared to the same period a year ago, will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Labour to make a statement at the earliest possible moment to announce the steps to be taken to counteract this very serious trend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and perhaps in the statistical information he will be able to give he will counteract the impression left by my friend.


George Harris Hees: Is the Prime Minister not aware that if the present rate of completions is continued we will end up the year 74,000 units short of the 190,000 minimum which is necessary each year.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question we have been asking him for many years now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: Here we go again; rowdy government. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question we have been posing to him for some time now. In view of the obvious continuing housing crisis, has the Prime Minister reached any decision yet on the necessity for creating a ministry of housing and urban affairs with a full time minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our immediate preoccupation is with the housing conference with the provinces, which will be taking place a few weeks from now.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the chairman of the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works. Does he intend to convene soon the committee to consider the housing situation?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I take note of this question.


David Vaughan Pugh: wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. To help housebuilding is the minister now contemplating removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I
direct a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. On October 26, in the absence of the right hon. gentleman, I asked the Minister of Labour if he would discuss with him the possibility of tabling the letter which the Prime Minister sent to the heads of provincial governments in order that the house might see what the letter indicated as the agenda for the conference. Can the right hon. gentleman answer that question now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I got in touch, by telegram I believe, with the provincial heads of governments. I am not sure whether all replies are in, and I shall inquire at once. If they are the letter may be tabled
November 7. 1967

immediately. II they are not, I shall give consideration to tabling the letter in any event.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider at the same time tabling the agenda for that conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, I think the letter dealt with the question of the agenda. It asked for the views of the provincial governments.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does the minister know whether any chartered banks are refusing to grant loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act because of the low interest rates which are permitted to be charged for such loans?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had reports of that kind.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the minister be good enough to look into this matter and report to the house?



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the government's plan to scrap the construction of five coast guard cutters which would have been used for rescue service on the high seas, is the government giving thought to providing additional coast guard services through the use of existing ships that are now manned and operating in the Canadian navy and other marine agencies of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the question is of immediate urgency. The hon. member may have thought of putting it on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the fact that contracts worth $30 million were to be let by the Department of Transport indicates the urgency of the matter. As rescue ships will still be required during emergencies on the high
Inquiries of the Ministry seas, I think the minister should consult with his colleagues-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated the importance of the matter but he may want to give notice of his intention to debate it on the adjournment proceedings.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has a court of inquiry been convened concerning the theft of arms at the Winnipeg armoury. If so, what conclusions have been reached?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The investigation is still going on, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the situation which has resulted in a work stoppage by postal employees at St. Catharines, Hamilton, and other Ontario towns as a result of the alleged disregard of grievance procedures by postal authorities which followed the suspension of two postal employees? If he is aware of this, what action does he consider taking?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I am aware of this, Mr. Speaker. In six post offices in the Niagara peninsula, letter carriers refused to report this morning; they took part in a wildcat strike after an employee-not two employees-was suspended. As far as the grievance procedure is concerned, that still exists.
The suspended employee can appeal the decision by way of grievance procedure, and we offered to begin at the third level of that procedure instead of at the bottom. The employees' organization asked us to go to the fourth level, which we accepted. They also asked us not to institute disciplinary action against letter carriers who took part in the strike. This we cannot accept.

November 7, 19G7
Inquiries of the Ministry


Barry Mather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Postmaster General see that the two dismissed employees are reinstated, pending the arbitration of their case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State? Could she tell us whether private television stations receive some compensation for certain programs they borrow from the public network?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question could be put on the order paper.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision arrived at today by the Supreme Court, in which the sentence of indefinite confinement of Everett George Klippert of Pine Point, Northwest Territories, an acknowledged homosexual, was confirmed by a majority of the court; and since Mr. Justice Cartwright, the chief justice of the court, in his dissenting report said he thought it improbable that parliament had intended such a result, will the minister consider, when amendments to the Criminal Code are brought before the house, amending the sections dealing with this affliction so that Canadians will not be subjected to preventive detention because they are victims of an unfortunate social disease?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seems to be making a speech rather than asking a question. He has made his representation to the minister.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking of a man who has been confined under a sentence of indefinite detention because he is afflicted with a social

disease. I ask the Minister of Justice to consider, when amendments to the Criminal Code are brought before the house, to give consideration to amending the appropriate sections that deal with this social disorder.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has
already made representations to that effect to the minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering the minister's statement in Calgary over the week end to the effect that "to the extent that medicare comes in I shall have to raise taxes", will he inform the house by what amount he will need to raise taxes if all provinces enter the medicare scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if that question is in order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, this question is of extreme importance to members of the house and should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may not ask a supplementary question to an original question which has not been accepted. He may ask another question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask the
Minister of Finance whether a date has been set for presenting this matter to the house.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter is still under consideration in the cabinet.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosefown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform this house whether the proposed lay-off of 500 railwaymen in the western region of the railways is directly attributable to a lack of wheat shipments?
November 7, 1967


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question two or three times already. Certainly the reduction in wheat movement is a contributing factor, but is not the only factor.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wish to know whether he is ready to reply to a question I directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on November 1, which question that minister said he would refer to the Minister of Finance. The question as originally put, as reported on page 3744 of Hansard for November 1, reads:
In view of the galloping dangers from air pollution will the government immediately consider granting tax incentives to any plants that instal anti-air pollution devices, similar to what is done already with respect to water pollution?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy. I have noticed the question and the answer which was given to it. The matter will be considered when tax changes are being considered.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the somewhat neglected President of the Privy Council. As a minister of the crown will he in the course of this session be introducing a program to achieve an objective about which he speaks so eloquently in his constant public appearances as a private member of parliament, namely buying Canada back?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister confirm that he has been in recent contact with the president of Air Canada and that the Winnipeg overhaul base will remain operative until at least 1973?
27053-25H
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have advised the company of the position I took in Winnipeg and have asked them to consider what steps might be taken to meet the requirement which was stated at that time to honour the Prime Minister's commitment.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: May I ask the minister whether that indication has been communicated to the president of Air Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it has. Having read the article in the newspaper, however, I think there may be a question of semantics involved here and, like Mr. McGregor, I believe there is nothing to be gained by discussing it. The main thing now is to get on with the job and find a solution so that we can provide in western Canada those basic facilities for air support we would all like to see there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is clear, is it, that the government's commitment will be honoured?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he received a letter from Mr. Martin Memer, president of local 1064, respecting the "Public Eye" program televised on Sunday last on the subject of the steel crisis in Sydney? If he has received such a letter, does the minister agree with the objections which were put forward and has he advised the union local accordingly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is asked in a form which makes it difficult for the Chair to determine whether it is one of immediate urgency. The minister might be in a better position to judge than I am.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Merner. Unfortunately I did not see the program in its entirety, so I am not in a position personally to assess the validity of the criticism it contained. But I have received a letter and I have passed it on to the Secretary of State.

November 7. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Would the minister not agree that the president of the local would not put anything in writing that did not appear on that show? In these circumstances would the minister not supply himself with a copy of the script, which I am sure could be obtained, to ascertain the basis of this criticism? Of course, the hon. gentleman would have to see the film in order to be in a position to pass judgment on it. I would also ask the minister what answer he gave with respect to the request which was made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure Mr. Merner made a very sincere commentary on the program, but since I did not see the program in its entirety I really cannot say anything about it myself.


Donald MacInnis: Did the
minister answer this correspondence and, if so, in what manner did he answer it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have already allowed one supplementary on this point. There are a number of other hon. members who appear to wish to ask questions and I suggest we go on to another subject.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and in view of the urgency of the question I posed on Wednesday, November 1, with regard to lay-offs under defence sharing agreements, would the Prime Minister check with his colleague, or with other appropriate ministers, to make sure an answer is given to this question within the next few days?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I have a reply for the hon. member. Officials of the department have consulted the Department of Defence Production and I am informed there has been no general cut-back in defence sharing programs. If the hon. member can be more specific about the layoffs he has in mind I shall be glad to look into them, but I can assure him that all our facilities are available to such workers.


John Alfred Irvine: Is the minister aware that some 150 workers have been laid off at the Ingersoll Machine and Tool works?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is conveying information to the minister.



MONTREAL-EXTENSION OF METRO TO AID EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18 I directed a question to the Prime Minister, and again I asked him this question on October 23, but I have yet not received any answer from him. This question reads as follows:
In view of the statement made by Premier Daniel Johnson yesterday in respect to the extension of the Montreal subway as a counter-measure against unemployment in the Montreal area, does the government intend to grant financial assistance to the government of Quebec or to the city of Montreal, as the case may be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY FINANCE MINISTER ON RETIREMENT OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the hon. gentleman take the house into his confidence and give us the same information as he gave at a recent meeting concerning the early retirement of the Prime Minister?
An hon. Member:: Explain.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might be safer if I were to answer that question myself, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: It might be more authentic.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Finance in his recent announcement about the early retirement of the Prime Minister was speaking from accurate knowledge or just expressing a secret hope.
November 7, 1967



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the Perfect Circle Company of Don Mills, Toronto, yesterday informed all its employees that the plant would be closed next Friday night as a result of the Canada-United States auto agreement? Since this is only five days' notice affecting 130 employees, more than half of whom have over ten years' service with the company, may I ask whether the minister has been notified by this company of its intention to close its operation and move its machinery to St. Thomas and whether the government is taking any action with respect to the future employment of the employees in question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the plans of the Perfect Circle Company but I would be glad to look into this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister asked the companies who are likely to be affected by the Canada-United States agreement to give his department and the department of manpower as well as the employees concerned much more adequate notice than five days?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Some time ago the Department of Labour issued an invitation or a request to companies involved in the transitional scheme under the automotive pact to notify that ministry of future plans involving changes affecting employees. This representation, or this invitation, was repeated by the department of manpower when it came into the picture, and it is still outstanding. I do not know whether there have been representations made with respect to the precise number of days notice to be given. I think this question is governed by provincial law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister undertake to find out whether this company has given notice of its plans either to the Department of Labour or to the department of manpower?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I said I would do that, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Industry is
Inquiries of the Ministry renegotiating the car pact will he speak on behalf of all Canadians in order that Canadians may be able to buy cars made in Canada at prices as low as they are across the border?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he considering any steps within the provisions of the Bank Act or otherwise to protect the investments of the thousands of small shareholders in the Bank of Western Canada now to be wound up?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in reply to a similar question, the inspector general of banks has been instructed to protect the assets to the full extent of his abilities. Instructions to this effect have been in operation for some weeks and I am confident the assets are being well protected.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister taken note of the fact that the parliament of the United Kingdom is apparently giving consideration to divorce legislation based upon marriage breakdown rather than upon the multiplication of matrimonial offences? Further, in presenting legislation to the house, which I understand he intends to do shortly, will the minister take into account the proposed British legislation to see if it has any application here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood is the same type as one asked by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. It is in the form of a submission or representation, which I am sure has been noted by the minister.
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting OLD AGE SECURITY
REQUEST THAT MEANS TEST BE ELIMINATED On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Owing to the confusion of thousands of our senior citizens who are now being asked to apply again for supplementary benefits to old age pensions for next year, and also the effect on veterans' benefits which have been reduced, will the government give consideration to eliminating the means test?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that this question is much too wide in scope to be asked on orders of the day.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Earlier this year tobacco growers, fruit growers and other agricultural producers who have to depend on transient labour to plant and harvest their crops urged the government to raise the exemption for contributions under the Canada Pension Plan from 24 days work or $240 in earnings to 40 days work or $600 in earnings. Has the minister reached a conclusion with regard to this question?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to representatives of farm organizations in this regard. This matter, of course, requires a legislative change in the Canada Pension Plan, which legislation the government has agreed not to change without consulting the provinces. I have assured the farm organizations that when such consultation takes place, as in due course it must, their representation in this regard will be raised with the provinces at that time.



BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY The house resumed, from Monday, November 6, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for 
Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Last night before ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the responsibility of this house to Canadian parents and families in providing through Bill C-163 a vehicle which will bring broadcasting, both public and private, under adequate and effective control so as to assure families and parents that television programming will be of a type that will strengthen the family unit, encourage character building and inspire the nation to build a clean, strong and free society in which there is respect for integrity, law and authority.
The petition of 80,000 women presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to members of this house a few years ago stated that the true function of the C.B.C. should be to help raise a generation with strength, character and the courageous leadership that the opportunities of this age demand. I stated that while many C.B.C. programs are commendable, such as the very positive and constructive job of portraying the best of our centennial celebrations, many others are rotten trash which undermine the family, the faith and morality of the home, and degrade human character. I also referred to the fact that all too often a small, misguided minority, usually producers, carry on this type of activity in defiance of management and government policy. Therefore the legislation that we are considering must have teeth in it to stop and control this type of thing. The taxpayers who subsidize this multimillion dollar industry must have some say in the affairs of their public broadcasting facility.
A good example of what I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, was the program last Sunday night between ten and eleven o'clock on abortion, produced by Patrick Watson. To say the least, in the setting that it was aired this film was pornography at its worst, pure unadulterated evil watched by millions of families, by children, and by young girls serving as babysitters. Was this a program for young girls? Was it not possible to discuss the controversial issue of legalized abortion in a rational and reasonable way without showing everything, including the screaming of a hysterical girl undergoing an abortion operation?
Another point in question concerns national unity. The Prime Minister has said this is our most vital and urgent problem. Yet last night a great deal of time was given to Rene Levesque and his radical separatist views
November 7, 1967

uttered in Toronto on the week end. No mention was made of the spectacular world week end in Edmonton, nor was there mention of the remarkable reception given the Governor General by his local townspeople, boyhood friends and schoolmates in Red Deer and Lacombe. Neither was there mention made in prelude of the centennial celebration of parliament which took place yesterday.
The public demand for more effective control of broadcasting is not only from parents, from taxpayers and from the elected representatives of the people, including the majority of the members of this house. It is shared by every aspect of Canadian life, including the press. The following quotations from the press, which I have kept down through the months, are just a sample of public opinion as recorded in the English press regarding the C.B.C., beginning three years ago when the government at last took action which has resulted in the present legislation. I may add that the French press has been just as outspoken and just as firm. The Vancouver Province, on October 30, 1964, said:
Now that the Pearson government admits its responsibility from the C.B.C., the taxpayer can look to Ottawa to rescue the C.B.C. from the curious crew that seem to have taken over so many C.B.C. productions-
The odd crew took over because C.B.C. management abdicated its responsibility to direct and control-
Before the C.B.C. drifts any further into the strange experiments of some of its employees, before it becomes regarded solely as a profitable hang-out for wispy bearded beatniks, impersonating genuinely creative talent, the government will have to get busy and put the C.B.C.'s house in order.
The Calgary Herald on October 29, 1964, said:
There is little doubt that, on occasion, some of the "far-out" employees of the public broadcasting system in Canada have been misusing the tremendous power given them. There have been quite unnecessary affronts to the moral code and the ethical values on which western civilization and society are being built.
In the Swift Current Sun on March 4, 1964, the editor quoted a complaint made to his newspaper about a C.B.C. drama:
Last Tuesday's Quest was the nastiest exhibition of vulgarity that it has been my misfortune to view in all my 80 years of living.
The editor wrote:
Canadian T.V. viewers have got to get it through their heads...that their opinions are not worth a hoot when blown against the C.B.C... . Up to now these C.B.C. arty introverts have been seemingly protected by both the Broadcast Board of Governors and parliament-
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on March 25, 1964,said:
Every crown corporation is responsible to the government... The majority (of Canadians) oppose censorship. There is a difference between censorship in general and the responsibility of the adult population to the young generation. ... The issue, therefore ... is one of C.B.C. responsibility to sensitive Canadians, young and old...to co-operate... to bring young Canadians into the adult stream of experience, with due cognizance of their years. Instead, the C.B.C. program makers seem to think that they must outrage the nation's sensitivity.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Deloraine, Manitoba, Times and Star of November 19, 1964, stated editorially:
It ought to be possible to have censorship of good taste which wouldn't really be censorship any more than is the good taste that impels a newspaper editor to see that emphasis is where it belongs.
The Fort William, Ontario Times Journal for October 28, 1964, stated:
Officials of the corporation could probably put up a good argument to back some of the decisions they have made in programming. But that is beside the point. What is needed-and needed badly- is not interference with the work of C.B.C. talent, but a statement of broad policy, agreed to by parliament, by which the organization could work. If such a policy ruled out filth and risque programs, inimical to the wholesome atmosphere of the Canadian home which the C.B.C. was created to serve, much of the present dissatisfaction would disappear.
The Sudbury Star of October 29, 1964 said that "people with high moral values can force television clean-up" and noted that the C.B.C. is "concerned about the extreme and negative reaction" of the promoters of the declaration. The editorial says, "Strong language, perhaps". But it may be the only kind of language that the C.B.C. understands. They do not call for censorship but they do call on members of parliament to make the C.B.C. answerable to the Canadian people. The editorial also noted that the Prime Minister had had complaints from his own riding about "the vulgar filth emitting from some of the programs on C.B.C."
The Owen Sound Sun-Times of October 23, 1964 said:
It must be increasingly evident to C.B.C. management, and to the government, that action must be taken to curb some of the programs which quite evidently menace the basis of society. It would be, of course, much better if that discipline comes from within the crown communication system. But if such is not the case, it is difficult to see how the government can continue to ignore what is quite apparently offensive to a great many Canadians ... it is quite evident that many of those in charge of C.B.C. programming are supporters
3978	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of a much different way of life than that which has been accepted by Canadians in general. And it is also apparent that way is bent toward the licentiousness which has brought the decay of past civilizations.
Then this editorial ended with these words:
Its propaganda should be aimed at the promotion of the good way of life which has marked this nation's history to date, rather than in undermining it.
Then there was an article in the Toronto Star of April 3, 1964 under the heading "In This Corner" by J. B. Lamb. This writer said:
There is a very real need for some measure to be instituted which would bring the viewpoint of Canada's national broadcasting service closer to that of the people it purports to serve and represent. Certainly today the values and ideals which can be attributed to the C.B.C. as a whole, and which are reflected both in the choice of dramatic productions and in comment and panel shows, are not those held by the vast majority of Canadians.
The next is an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 10, 1964. Here the editor discusses the remarks of Dr. Wilder Penfield which were made before the Vanier Conference on Family Life at Carle-ton University. The editorial states:
Dr. Penfield dared suggest-and he was applauded -that we should come to some conclusions about the control of mass media so that liberty is not prostituted to licence. Thus a plea for control or even censorship comes not from the old familiar places, but from a man who epitomizes in Canada the most advanced thinking of the scientific mind .. .control...if it is to come in a democratic society... must be imposed by an aroused public insisting that vulgarity shall not be rewarded and degradation shall not be upheld.
Another is the following article on censorship which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 7, 1964:
Next to "freedom" and "democracy", the most abased word in the English language, we sometimes think, is "censorship". It used to be that people spoke against sin. . .. What has taken sin's place now, it seems, is "censorship"; let one be tagged ... with wanting to censor something, and the scarlet sins of the vilest sinner become snow white by comparison.. . civilized society exists, and perhaps can only exist, through order, meaning that certain things... are prohibited; censored. Every law ... is a prohibition of something.... Every court .. . every policeman. .. exists to see to it that such laws... be enforced. It is what we mean by "law and order". There is not, never has been and never can be absolute freedom; only freedom in degree.
.. . Thus the right of free speech, as Mr. Justice Holmes put It, is not the right of a man to stand up in a crowded theatre and shout "fire".... No one among us should want censorship without sense, without respect for decent freedoms.... But what

DEBATES	November 7, 19B7
we have a right and need to ask for is censorship, voluntarily or otherwise, of whatever violates accepted codes of public decency, or of public morals, or public security.... In other words ... responsibility. To argue the contrary in the name of "freedom" or in loose thought against "censorship", is to argue against a sense of proportion-to argue in fact for licence and moral anarchy.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on with quotations of this type but time does not permit. These quotations are just a sampling of public opinion regarding the C.B.C. as recorded in the English press. Here, then, is the challenge the people of Canada have hurled at them in no uncertain terms. We must not fail the ordinary citizen, the fathers and mothers of this nation who need and want our support in their everyday tasks of family building. The airwaves have been full of the same kind of tragic programming since that time. One could support my argument with almost endless protests that C.B.C. programs which are good and worthy are obliterated by the bad. During these past years we have learned more about the problem. The presence of men and women in positions of program responsibility who openly want to use this great instrument to divide the country and to promote their own peculiar ideologies and personal feelings has been well documented before this house by other speakers from both sides.
I would encourage all members to read carefully the courageous remarks made by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the house last Friday. If you look at the evidence you might wonder whether the hon. member used strong enough words to describe those ruthless few who have been able to get a grip on certain vital programs in the public affairs sector and elsewhere to the great detriment of Canada. The loyalty of some of these men to Canada may indeed be questioned. How devastating have been the policies and actions of some of these men!
We might take the matter of the deliberate promotion of drugs like LSD and marijuana. Over the past two years there have been a series of T.V. and radio programs which have stressed the pleasures of taking LSD for mind expansion and other purposes, supposedly all forward-looking and good. Think of the several exposures of men like Ginsberg who are well known pushers of these drugs and the almost total failure to tell the other side of the story, the tragedy of those hooked by drugs. In the United States, Ginsberg's home country, he has never been able to gain the T.V. exposure he has had in Canada.
November 7. 1967	COMMONS
What do we know about l.s.d.? We are told that it causes a breakdown in chromosomes leading to deformed babies, and almost universally responsible medical opinion warns of the dangers of the misuse of this drug. At least one tragic suicide has taken place in Canada owing to l.s.d. and yet, without adequate research or without giving proper warning, C.B.C. producers have placed before our youngsters programs designed to appeal to youth in which the Ginsbergs and their ilk have told them that this is a good thing. On one French language network program last year, a popular interview show at a prime time, a young reporter told how he took l.s.d. in New York and described its wonders and delights. This same program suggested that it ought to be available without restriction in Canadian grocery and drug stores.
Canadians should stand up in protest against this type of programming. Producers like these should be held accountable in the courts for the death of this Toronto boy and for the wreckage of so many lives. Time does not permit me today to read in detail from some of the editorials which are available. However, I should like to read from an article in the Globe and Mail of November 2, 1967 about one of the favourite subjects of this elite crew of producers and their immediate supervisors-Yorkville and its hippies. The Globe and Mail article by Don Delaplante tells a story that should tear the hearts of parents in this country and certainly ought to make us aware of our responsibility to do the right thing. The article reads in part as follows:
Yesterday, a metro police inspector, members of the College street station plainclothes squad and numerous uniformed officers helped the parents of the girl, a 16-year old Scarboro student turn Yorkville inside out in an effort to find her.... More than 125 girls-
Between the ages of 13 and 20.
-have been arrested so far this year in Yorkville on the charge of vagrancy... . Police are searching Yorkville for 33 girls under 16 whose homes are in metro and for 90 whose homes are out of town... . Police are convinced that a group of older hippies in their late 20's and 30's are preying on the girls as a form of free sex and leading them into prostitution. Police yesterday charged two men aged 25 and 34, with living on the avails of prostitution of Yorkville girls.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the comments he has made about the C.B.C. carrying programs on this subject, what does he think about the Globe and Mail running press stories of this type?
DEBATES	3979
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: That is an altogether different thing because these C.B.C. programs come right into our homes, into the minds of our children, our high school students and our famihes. This is undesirable. The story in the Globe and Mail is trying to show the evils of this sort of thing, to warn people of the dangers involved. What a question for an hon. member to ask.


An hon. Member:: And what a silly answer to give.


Robert Norman Thompson: The parents of this country will judge whether this is silly or not, Mr. Speaker. The article then continues:
No current rates for 1967 are available, but health records for 1965 and 1966 show a great rise in the v.d. rate among young people in metro, which is believed to be continuing.
There is apparently a great rise in venereal disease among our young people as a result of this kind of thing being held up before our young people as desirable.
The report of the Aird commission to parliament in 1929, from which our present national system grew, contains certain conclusions relevant and important to Canada today. It recognized several dangers. The first was that broadcasting should be carried out in the interest of Canadian listeners and in the national interest. There is no reference here to the interests of producers. Second, it recognized that where religious broadcasting is allowed there should be regulations prohibiting statements of a controversial nature. It also recognized that broadcasting of political matters should be carefully restricted under arrangements mutually agreed upon by all political parties.
I wish to close with a reference to the frequent attacks on religion which one hears regularly on the C.B.C. and on other programs. This has occurred so often that one can only assume it is a systematic and planned operation. It appears to be some kind of a planned project by a few who seem to work from behind the scenes. This whole aspect of public broadcasting now falls directly on our shoulders. In view of the flagrant misuse of the C.B.C. in the area of religion, I will also be proposing an amendment to protect us against such activities which set Canadians against Canadians, church against church and faith against those of no faith.
I am strongly of the opinion that Canada's national broadcasting system has come under
November 7. 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the influence of a few who are determined to undermine the morals, break down family units and, yes, even the political thinking of Canadians, not through the open forum or normal political activity but rather from inside the T.V. studio. I am also of the opinion that these preconceived opinions of a very small minority, vocal and repetitious as they are, constitute a threat to our liberty.
Others in this house have touched upon certain flagrant failings of our broadcasting system in promoting separatism, division, extreme left-wing politics and extreme leftwing foreign affairs positions. I would endorse all of these accusations against the same smaller group who attack family line. It is from this viewpoint that I speak.
After months and years of discussion by committees and royal commissions the legislation we have before us, while it improves the broadcasting picture immensely, is still without adequate teeth to bring this allimportant aspect of our present modern life under the proper supervision and control of parliament and the people whose tax dollars support it. This is why I have been moved to speak as a parent, to speak on behalf of the families of this nation who are determined and want to raise their children in that kind of life and to be that kind of responsible citizens this nation has had in the past and needs in the future.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, in your experience you have heard a multitude of reasons for members participating in debate in this house so I might as well give you mine. My reason is simple. We are discussing Bill C-163 in respect of the C.B.C., but I do not believe we are talking about what the public really wants to know. I hope to be able to explain this statement a little later.
I have listened carefully to the minister's detailed and helpful explanation. Let me congratulate her on her stamina and perseverance. She kept going through all 10,000 words of it. Since then I have listened and read attentively expressions from all corners of this house. I have listened to C.B.C. apologists as well as those who would open up the treasury for five years and those who would curtail expenditures. We have all heard some wonderful legal arguments and opinions that the C.B.C. will now be directed by cabinet. We have heard pious hopes that the ugly spectre of politics will be forever erased from any connection with the C.B.C. There have been other arguments and suggestions that control will now be more political than the 
B.	B.G. ever considered. The more I have heard the more confused the issue has become.
I have formed one opinion with which I am sure the majority of Canadian taxpayers will agree. This debate is missing the target and is skirting the most important consideration in respect of the whole ugly C.B.C. mess. Up to the present time I have discerned no real attempt to come to grips with this important consideration. In the past issues have been clouded by insinuations that any criticism of the C.B.C. is an attempt to direct broadcasting and that parliament must not interfere with the creative elements of the
C.	B.C., with which I agree. There are those who say the C.B.C. is doing a magnificent job. I cannot agree with them. It has been suggested that we should give the C.B.C. enough money to operate for four or five years at a time with no strings attached, but I suggest that the wisdom of this proposal has been challenged by at least four or five programs carried by the C.B.C. network. The Canadian taxpayer would like parliament to make sure that the C.B.C. is financially responsible. I do not believe for one moment that the people are as overly concerned about programming as we have been led to believe. They still have control of the on and off button. What they want parliament to find out is the value we are receiving from this expenditure.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about the terrible programming on the C.B.C. With all respect I suggest to him that no one has to watch any program. They can shut it off. I have heard public indignation about the expenditure of in excess of $100 million per year on this giant. This is understandable when one considers the other segments of our society which are suffering for lack of money. For example, what might an extra $100 million have done in respect of housing in Canada this year?
Let me say again that this debate is missing the target by a country mile with few exceptions. Last night the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) got close to the point, but I fear he is not prepared to vote the way he talks.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
You see, Mr. Speaker, we are taking off in all directions simultaneously even though the basic issue must be: How can we control and, yes, cut down on the woeful extravagances of this juggernaut? I submit, respectfully, that nothing in the bill and not much said in the
November 7, 1967

debate so far has shown the way to reduce
costs or to really improve programming- nothing.
As things stand now, the minister accepts no responsibility. The stock answer is always that she is not responsible, that she only reports for the C.B.C. Most of us have had experience with the complaint of a constituent about C.B.C. service-and what a laugh this is. What these constituents have received in the mail from a highly paid public relations expert is a snow job beyond compare, so that the poor constituent really does not know what his question was in the first place. I understand that all this is to be changed, but I get the inference from the debate that the final answer to most disputes will now rest with cabinet.
Most politicians, indeed all politicians, need a certain amount of publicity, so I suggest that a politician who dares to criticize the C.B.C. is certainly leaving himself or herself subject to blacklisting. It seems to me that the bigger the apologist for the C.B.C., the more coverage he may receive. It is, therefore, indeed a brave front bench member of parliament who has the temerity to say anything critical of this monopolistic creature. Some have tried in the past but they have been immediately charged with trying to control programming and other sinister behaviour. It has been said that no one should criticize this sacred cow. But now the minister has and she has been criticized for her actions. I do not agree too often with the minister on other things but in this regard I have to give her full marks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCutcheon:: The only criticism I have to offer is that she should have done it years ago and then have been backed up by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I am only a lowly backbencher who gets little publicity in any event, but I suggest that the C.B.C. has gotten so far out of hand that the only cure for this financial cancer is to offer it for sale or lease to private interests. Buyers can be found. I am all the more convinced that this is the only "out" since there is absolutely no consensus in the house.
Even the bill does not conform to the unanimous report of the committee on broadcasting. I believe there has been such a build-up of power cells, so much feather-beddding. so many working to rule arrange-

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting ments and other inefficient practices built up over the years that nothing as mild as the minister's suggested shake-up in management can really break this hold on the organization. Truly it is bureaucracy run rampant. As a matter of fact, I would not object to a temporary shutdown, perhaps a few lay-offs or terminations. It might be necessary to cease programming operations for a few days or weeks, but this would be a cheap price to pay if we could get this financial cancer removed from the public's back.
When the Broadcasting Act was first enacted some 30 years ago Canada had just emerged from the horse and buggy days. We then used the Morse code for communication and the telegraph operator was quite a big man. Places were not hours apart, as is the case today, but days and days apart. The high principle of tying the country together and unifying it was different then from what it is now. I suggest this was well put by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard) when he said that the concept then was entirely different from what it is today.
I still subscribe to this worth-while aim and would be prepared to have the C.B.C. subsidized, and in turn to have the C.B.C. subsidize capital equipment expenditures to provide service, that is, a signal, to every' Canadian. As the minister said, the rule of thumb is that a community of 2,000 should have television and a community of 500 should have radio. But for heavens sake let us get out of programming and management by remote control. Let us stop subsidizing mediocrity. Let us make the producing and programming part of this organization selfsupporting.
I can hear it now. It will be said we are stifling talent or doing this or that. But I submit that talent, both performing and creative, that is worth while will survive. True talent always has. But let us stop this silly habit of substituting berets and beards for talent. Let us substitute real talent for this ersatz variety. The only way this can be done is to make them cut the mustard and go to work.
Let us take a simple example. We do not have too many Barbra Striesands or Lena Hornes in Canada but we do have some very talented people. Let us compare the operation of a North American commercial network presenting talent. The presentation will be on a plain, attractive stage with adequate lighting, but with talent. I repeat, talent. The C.B.C. will probably reproduce the Taj
3982	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Mahal on stage and completely smother the talent. I submit that many of our programs could be reduced in cost and made more effective by merely spending less.
Many people say they do not like commercials. I would prefer to spend 60 seconds *watching that cute little puppy eat his dog Tood than spend a minute watching the credits as they go rolling by on the screen. The 'C.B.C. will spend anything up to 60 seconds time giving credits to directors, assistant directors, directors' assistants, switchers, assistant switchers, scriptwriters, assistant scriptwriters, assistant assistants, including electrical wiring pluggers-in and other assorted characters.
Saturday night hit an all-time high. I was privileged to watch the show "In Person". It is handled by an m.c. who is a personable young man, not terrifically talented I might add, but he is m.c. of a supposedly professional show. When the list of credits was shown on the screen, lo and behold, a credit was given for a voice coach. With this kind of thing going on, I fully expect one of these times to see a credit for a doctor in attendance in case of laryngitis, or perhaps a coordinator of gargling.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One might well say the examples I have given are not terrifically important, and I would agree. But I submit that they are symptomatic of the mess in which the C.B.C. finds itself. The extra costs incurred in C.B.C. productions must be enormous compared with those of private networks, both here and abroad. This free spending is followed through in every department. For example, I am told that the C.T.V. coverage of the Pan-Am games was arranged and undertaken by approximately 10 per cent of the number of personnel used by the C.B.C. and at about the same ratio of cost. Indeed, I read some place that another sporting event which took place last September in Toronto was covered by 34 C.T.V. employees compared with 100 C.B.C. employees. I did not see any of these events on television but I am told that the C.T.V. coverage was just as good as that of the C.B.C.
I suggested earlier that the only way to clear up this mess is to dispose of it. In making this suggestion there are certain reservations which I submit must be made. First, we must provide service to all Canadians wherever they may be in this land. Therefore I suggest that parliament allot the money to provide the physical and technical
|Mr. McCutcheon.]
DEBATES	November 7, 1967
services required so that all Canadians are able to receive service-and by service I mean a signal-and that financial and other services be provided in areas where commercial prospects would not warrant the outlay of the capital cost involved and where suitable leasing arrangements could be concluded. Second, the entire so-called creative division and performing section should be turned over to private enterprise with long term credit made available so that they may have time to get organized and become selfsufficient. They will then produce programs that are acceptable or they will go hungry. Third, the network which is required for educational television should be maintained.
It is my belief that we can provide, at a fraction of the present cost, better service to Canadians and, believe me, programming will immediately improve. No longer will fourth and fifth rate talent be able to hide behind a soft C.B.C. feather bed. Another great benefit which will result from such action will be the fact that parliament will no longer have to discuss the C.B.C. with all its implications and with all the money that is spent with no control or with too much control. What a day that will be.
In view of the divergence of opinion in the house on the direction this bill should take and the fact that vital information available to the minister is not available to the house, further discussion under these circumstances would be quite meaningless. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Danforth):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee of this house on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts."


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, could Your Honour tell me for my own clarification whether you are going to make a ruling on this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: It is accepted.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss some of the implications of the broadcasting bill. In Canada the C.B.C. seems to be classified as the great Canadian entertainment. There is nothing that brings members of parliament scurrying back to the house with greater speed than a discussion of the C.B.C. I think it is fair to assume that in the remarks I
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting organization. However, there are some reasons outside of the administration that have led to this situation. For example, in the last ten years or so we have been undergoing a tremendous change, a rural migration to the urban centres. The large cleavages which exist between rural and urban centres have been accelerated by this process. Therefore, what is of importance to the people in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver is not necessarily important to people living in the rural areas. Consequently, many of the attitudes which have grown up in these cities are not acceptable to the people in the rural areas. One only has to think of the odd program the C.B.C. has produced, such as the very controversial Crucifixion, which I think was presented about two years ago, to illustrate this point. We all recall the difficulties which that program raised.
There is also the educational aspect of the C.B.C. I think any network that is attempting to provide a general service to all Canadians is perhaps going to find this aspect overemphasized at times. It is certainly going to be objected to by a great many people, particularly when it appears as though the culture pushers are trying to impose their views on people who are not necessarily so enthusiastic about them. This is particularly true of people who are inclined to regard television as relaxation or entertainment, a method of escaping the particular pressues of their daily lives. The imposition of someone else's idea of what one should be watching is not always pleasant, and I think the expression of this view is sometimes heard in the House of Commons. Perhaps this is one explanation for the comments of the various television columnists that Canadians do not seem particularly interested in watching Canadian produced programs with Canadian television actors. They regard this as another attempt to push something on them.
Another point which should receive some consideration is the pressure of centralization on the C.B.C. A week or so ago we debated in this house the Dosco situation. It seems to me that there is an analogy to be drawn between the pressures that led the Dosco Corporation to attempt the closing down of the Sydney plant and the pressures that have been imposed upon the C.B.C. by the apparent necessity of centralizing its programming in Toronto. Practically all the major network programs originate in Toronto, and this is true of public affairs and news. These are the programs which deal with the political aspects of the nation, and it is incorrect for

the C.B.C. or anybody else to assume that we are all made in the mould of Toronto.


Reid Scott: You should be.


John Mercer Reid: We are not all cursed by having to live in that particular centre; rather, some of us are blessed by not having to live there. It seems to me that this has been one of the most galling things the C.B.C. has done. I think it was caused by the fact that the C.B.C., having no particular star system in presenting performers, had a star system in respect of the producers controlling the programs. The implication from that seems to be that the producers produced those programs which would interest them and perhaps their clique in Toronto or in other urban centres and forgot their primary responsibility for producing programs which would appeal to the nation.
There is a variety of cultural centres around the country such as Winnipeg, Halifax, Charlottetown and Vancouver. All of them are attempting to build local theatres and they have been given a minimum of support by the C.B.C. because of this undesirable centralization and the necessity of taking Toronto as the touchstone of what is good. I hope that under the new president and the new organization these problems will be corrected and corrected quickly. In so far as television production is concerned, it may be necessary for us to provide additional money to assist the C.B.C. in decentralizing or it may be necessary for the C.B.C. to look at its budget and perhaps eliminate or reduce certain expenditures on services in other areas in order to provide this one which I think probably deserves a higher priority than the C.B.C. has given it to date.
This brings us to the question of the relationship of the C.B.C. and broadcasting in general to the members of parliament. Naturally our prospects for re-election depend to a certain extent upon the amount of exposure we are given on national broadcasting networks and also the way in which our opinions are presented. I do not have to tell hon. members what can be done with a videotape in the hands of a skilled editor. There are members present who have probably smarted more from this than I have. As a result of my own experience in watching programs made I know that often what came out in the program was not what was intended. At times it appeared as though almost the reverse of what had been said was presented on the program. This is a problem of producers and to some extent it is a problem of
November 7, 1967

direction from the senior management. Basically, I think it results from the rather cavalier attitude taken by producers.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is always going to be conflict between members of parliament and the communications media. This is desirable. I believe that most members of parliament would be quite satisfied and would have no legitimate complaint if a balance were kept in the programs presented by the C.B.C. There could be no legitimate complaint in that case, although doubtless there would be continuing complaints. I do not see, either, how the imposition of balance in presenting the sides of a controversy can interfere with the production of a lively, interesting program. It may be that this imposition might result in producers being limited to the facts, particularly in public affairs programs. It may be a limitation, but certainly they should be dealing with the facts when it comes to this type of program. I feel that to some extent we are not getting this type of program from the C.B.C.
If I may return to the bill, Mr. Speaker, one of the more important things it does is the reorganization of management. We have a very unfortunate situation there. There is no doubt at all that the authority of management has been eroded over a long period of time. The question which has to be asked is, why? I think one of the reasons is that the C.B.C. has been under a barrage of investigations and attacks. Here is a partial list that I was able to accumulate over the week end. In 1949-52 the Massey commission made a thorough investigation which resulted in a very impressive volume issued as a supplement to the commission's report. In 1956-57 there was the first Fowler report. In 1957-58 we had the preview commentary issue. In 1957-58 we had the introduction of new broadcasting legislation which resulted in the establishment of the B.B.G. and a whole new set of circumstances to which the corporation had to become adjusted.
About 1961 we had the Glassco investigation, which was quite thorough as hon. members can ascertain by reading the report. In 1963 we had the reorganization which I have already mentioned of the office of the Secretary of State, when a new set of circumstances had to be met by the C.B.C. Then in 1964-65 there was the second Fowler report. Then there was the Seven Days investigation by a parliamentary committee and the investigation by Mr. Keate. During 1965, 1966 and 1967, we had the cabinet committee on broadcasting and the white paper in 1967.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Finally, we have this broadcasting legislation. It can be seen that during the last ten years the C.B.C. has been under continuous investigation demanding the attention and time of senior management.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In addition, the C.B.C. was forced to set up a president's advisory committee. A number of private bodies were also investigating the C.B.C. Also, the president suffered a heart attack during the early sixties and that led to a partial vacuum. For the last 13 months or so we have had a lame duck president. Mr. Ouimet offered his resignation but the government did not accept it because the broadcasting legislation had not been brought down. Until the new broadcasting legislation is passed and until the president's power and authority are clearly defined, I doubt that anyone in his right mind will be willing to take his job. After passage of the bill much work will need be done to restore some semblance of stability to the corporation.
While all these investigations were going on-and there may have been others with which I am not fully acquainted-there was a continuing tension between C.B.C. management and the so-called creative people of the corporation. There were strikes of producers and much difficulty with the creative people. The C.B.C. does not operate on a star system; the United States networks and movie companies work on that system. In the C.B.C. the producer is the real star as is evident from the type of programming the corporation has put out. The prima donnas of the C.B.C. are the producers. Because of the vacuum at the top I suspect that in the corporation the tail wagged the dog. We saw a vivid example of this in the Seven Days dispute which caused excitement and interest in the House of Commons. In that instance those at the bottom told those at the top what to do. Basically, that is what came out of the evidence heard by the parliamentary committee which looked into the matter.
That this should be so is not surprising. It became evident that "new stars"-I use that phrase in quotation marks-had emerged within the C.B.C. Surprisingly, those stars were hosts of public affairs programs. Like most stars their positions and glory went to their heads and in overextending themselves they went against management. They thought they might end up controlling the corporation and that they thought so is not suprising. There was some mention of Mr. Patrick Watson as president of the
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting C.B.C. There were other suggestions that hosts such as Mr. LaPierre or Mr. Leit-erman were qualified to take over control of the corporation. Some of these were taken seriously.
That such a state of affairs existed shows to my mind that for a variety of reasons, control of the corporation had passed from top management to those lower down the scale. Here one can put one's finger on middle management's lack of ability to act as a means of communication between senior management and the producers or stars. After reading again the evidence which was taken during the Seven Days hearings my impression is that middle management could not deal with the pressures to which it was subjected. Those in middle management positions waffled; they procrastinated and moved only when necessary.
Senior management must be blamed for the breakdown of middle management. Senior management did not pay enough attention to recruiting those for middle management. As a result, for a long time management directives did not filter down to the producers. Basically that is today's situation. Producers exercise too much control within the C.B.C. and senior management is paralysed because of the government's inactivity. As I say, we have a lame duck president who has for 13 months been offering his resignation.
Our greatest contribution to this debate would be to end it as quickly as possible and send the bill to the committee. Once the bill becomes law there will be authority to reorganize the corporation.


Mr. Bigg:: Is the hon. member offering himself for the president's job?


John Mercer Reid: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does he not wish to hear more speeches from this side of the house?


John Mercer Reid: I thought I might entertain hon. members with my remarks and then allow others to express their views and make their points.
Turning from the prima donnas and the producers, I wish to look at something else facing the C.B.C., the question of the new type of communication. Basically, the era of the extension of services, of getting a signal to outlying population centres of Canada, is over. No longer is it a question of engineering; it has now become a question of programming.


An hon. Member:: Of money.


John Mercer Reid: No longer can we afford to broadcast just any sort of television program, as was done in the past. Senior management must control the corporation and must lay down guide lines for its producers. There must be means of enforcing such guide lines.
Digressing for a moment, I was surprised to note in a Toronto Star column by television columnist Roy Shields the suggestion that the C.T.V. network had been discussing with the government the provision of subsidies in order that that commercial network might put on Canadian programs or programs with Canadian content in them. To agree to this would be idiocy. When those in this field of private enterprise were applying for their licences, they claimed they would provide this country with such programs. It does not seem right for the government of Canada to provide subsidies to those who in their original applications for licences promised to do what they now seek subsidies for. They were to put on Canadian programs or programs with Canadian content and were to finance such ventures from the profits they made from imported programs.
To return to the subject I was pursuing previously, I was talking about the situation which we face with respect to the management of the C.B.C. The government and the minister are to be congratulated for not following in this bill the philosophy of the report and the recommendations which the Seven Days committee made to the house. On reading that report again there seems to be an implicit bias in favour of the hosts of the Seven Days program and producers in general. I recognize that the official recommendations were designed to improve communications within the corporation and to be of benefit to top management and to producers. The point is that if the philosophy of that report were accepted the bill would need to be vastly different. I congratulate the minister and the government for seeing through the report and coming up with a bill that is much more sensible than anything the report suggests. After all, it is the function of management to manage and it is the function of producers to produce programs within the context of the guide lines which are laid down by statute. The law must be interpreted by the C.R.C. and imposed on the C.B.C. In this fashion we shall have a more responsible C.B.C.
In the interests of brevity I urge hon. members to give the bill second reading quickly. We should discuss it in detail as soon as possible looking for the errors which
November 7, 1967	COMMONS
creep into bills no matter how well they have been prepared. We should look upon this bill as representing a great step forward in an effort to protect a national broadcasting system which, over all, I believe has done a very good job in Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I doubt that as members of the House of Commons we shall ever be happy with the C.B.C. The country is too large, the mandate is too encompassing, the differences between regions are too profound. If the C.B.C. could satisfy all the demands made on it it would clearly be a superhuman organization. Nevertheless it is the only system we have in Canada capable of dealing, even inadequately, with all the needs which are to be satisfied. I believe the bill is sound and that the principles contained in it should be supported, as they are supported by all in the broadcasting industry. It deserves to be passed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the matter dealt with in Bill No. C-163 is of prime importance and even more so since the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) made a statement which provoked, as well in the house as outside, a controversy to which there seems to be no end. I feel we must make an objective survey of the current situation within the C.B.C. to throw light on the facts as they really are.
When the Secretary of State declared that some sectors of the C.B.C. were rotten, I believe she was perfectly right. I would even add that those rotten sectors are growing even more rotten.
On the other hand, the president of the C.B.C., Alphonse Ouimet, who earns a yearly salary of $40,000, had a letter published in the newspapers which he addressed to the hon. Secretary of State and in which he writes:
My purpose in writing is to request that you provide the corporation with all information in your possession on which you base the charges of "rotten management" within the corporation.
She did not say that the whole management was rotten but that some areas within C.B.C. were rotten.
The C.B.C. president, continues this way:
When serious charges of this nature are levelled against the corporation or its people, it is our practice and duty to ask for substantiation of the charges by those making them, so that the corporation may take immediate steps to verify or disprove the charges and to take appropriate action.
DEBATES	3987
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting You will understand that the corporation cannot allow your public charges to remain unsubstantiated.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the factor that time and time again public charges have been levelled at the C.B.C. Yesterday, for instance, I heard the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) say that the government should mention the names, give the exact nature of the complaints and so on and so forth.
When the Conservative government was in office, I complained personally about the C.B.C., but my complaints were ignored, on the grounds that it was a crown agency independent of parliament or independent of the government. It is independent of the government, that is true, but it is not independent of the Canadian parliament.
When the Conservatives were in power, we often heard, for instance, the present member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), as well as the former members for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere and for Nieolet-Yamaska, object to C.B.C. activities or to certain sectors of the corporation.
When I accused the C.B.C. two years ago of tolerating socialistic partisanship within its ranks, I was asked to take part in a television program with Mrs. Jean Desprez, a freelance radio and television performer often seen on the C.B.C., who said bluntly that the C.B.C. was full of dead wood, and she was there to speak in defence of the corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. president continues:
Such accusations are capable of destroying public confidence in a national institution-
What confidence? What is the basis for the president's statement to the effect that there is public confidence, when the public knows very well that discrimination has been practised for a long time in some quarters of the C.B.C.?
-public confidence in a national institution which must have the respect and confidence of the same public-
Mr. Speaker, to the C.B.C. president and to the other employees of the corporation, I say they should start by showing respect for the Canadian people they must serve, instead of treating them as they have for too long.
-must have the respect and confidence of the public it was created to serve.
Precisely, let it serve that public.
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Mr. Speaker, I will demonstrate to you that the public is not being served. Yesterday, in this house, we celebrated the hundredth anniversary of the first session of the Canadian parliament under confederation. Last night, I watched the C.B.C. news. What did we see? About 45 seconds coverage of the reception in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the supreme court, Mr. Justice Cartwright, could not even be recognized; the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate could not be recognized; in fact, not a single member could be recognized. Yet, the federal parliament is the first parliamentary institution in the Canada of 1867.
Paradoxically, immediately after this important news item on the commemoration of the first parliamentary session of Canada, we are shown the R.I.N.'s skirmish in Aylmer against the town council. How is it that the C.B.C. cameras were in Aylmer yesterday for the meeting of the city council to photograph youths 13 and 14 years old with R.I.N. posters to prove to the people that youths are aroused against established order and authority, when those same cameras could not be in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon to cover this event live, for instance, and give to the Canadian people whom we represent, a true picture of their parliamentary institutions which enact their legislation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) told me these youths did not even come from Aylmer; I believe him. They could have come from Ottawa, Hull or the area, but a demonstration was organized, and someone in the R.I.N. then called the C.B.C., which immediately sent down a film crew to cover this event. And we call this a responsible agency.
Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. will cost the Canadian people $145.8 million this year, under the management of its president, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, who gets a salary of $40,000 per year. The C.B.C. shows us all kinds of things, except those essential things of interest to the Canadian people, whether they speak French or English.
If my business were managed by a president like that, I would have been bankrupt a long time ago or a private institution would no longer exist.
Let us take as another example, the recent Progressive Conservative convention in
Toronto. We are informed that the C.B.C. spent $46,000 to show us the election of the new leader, Mr. Stanfield. Very well, that is of public interest. But, at the same time, [Mr. Caouette.l
private radio and television stations of the CTV network, which gave just about the same amount of time to coverage of the convention, spent, I just heard, about $12,000. Private enterprise managed by responsible people spends $12,000 when the national corporation, managed by a president, who is paid $40,000 a year besides expenses of course, vice-presidents, etc., spends $46,000 for the same work.
Mr. Speaker, the corporation does not serve the best interests of the Canadian public. Yesterday, I say it again, there were some cameras in the Senate, but there was not one in the House of Commons which was commemorating the hundredth anniversary of the first sitting of the Canadian parliament.
Yet, every night, there are news reports about the people of Viet Nam who are spread out on the ground or have just been killed. We have C.B.C. reporters in Cyprus in case a Cypriot should quarrel with his neighbour. We also have reports on the Congo. In fact, we have cameras in Europe, in Asia, in short everywhere, and the news we practically never get is the news from home, about Canada. Of course, we want to know what goes on elsewhere, but we would like to know, first of all, what is going on in our own country. The C.B.C. management and the president, Mr. Ouimet, know that there are abuses within the C.B.C.
The Secretary of State was quite right to say that some sectors are rotten. This does not mean that all C.B.C. employees are rotten or that they wallow in rot. No, this is not what the Secretary of State said, and I do not say that either. We have responsible people.
I have already attacked in this house the chief of the C.B.C. news division, Mr. Pela-deau. I do not know if he is still in charge of this division, but he was then. He was the one who decided about the news to broadcast at 6 o'clock, 6.30 or 11 p.m.
I can say here that the quality of the news on the English network is quite superior to that of the French network. Besides, they are more complete and better adapted.
We have people at the C.B.C. who give us excellent reports. We know some of them here in the House of Commons. Often, we see Mr. Pierre Sauve, Mr. Cruzene, Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin who give us real reports, because they deal with news all day long. They are not the ones who decide what news
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the controls: these are the four people working at this private station called CKRN-TV, in Rouyn-Noranda. At the private station in Quebec city, the staff is about the same, just like at CFTM, channel 10, in Montreal, or in Sherbrooke. But in a C.B.C. studio, there are about 25 employees all getting in each other's way. Nobody knows what is going on, which is the real camera, for there are 4 or 5 of them, and you cannot take your eyes off the little red light because if you do for one minute, you become confused and find yourself looking in the wrong direction. Mr. Speaker there are some limits, and this is an organization that costs us $145 million.


An hon. Member:: We can say that it was quite a reception committee.


David Réal Caouette: It certainly is a reception committee.
Private enterprise is more efficient. Besides, the government is threatened by saying: If you act that way, if you accuse us, we shall strike, or we shall quit, and you will have to deal with a public broadcasting system that will not work.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite serious when I suggest that if these C.B.C. people do not want to smarten up, if they do not want to work as they should, we should close the radio and television services and start negotiations to sell this network to private enterprise which will manage it much more efficiently than Mr. Alphonse Ouimet has done ever since his appointment. That is a solution.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, never, never.


David Réal Caouette: I hear one of my friends saying: "Never, never". I understand this "never", but we pay two times more than we would pay private enterprise to get better results than we do with the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: Private enterprise is profitable.


David Réal Caouette: Indeed, the public television, the C.B.C. is in the red. Direct taxes, $145 million which bring in no profit at all.
And what about the programs we have. I often watch movies on the late show at night and I can tell you that they keep one really late at night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Caouette.l


David Réal Caouette: Especially when we are shown films from Poland, Russia or Yugoslavia in the original with French subtitles. We are not all bilingual in Canada. Some of us do not understand. Then subtitles are written at the bottom of the picture in white, sometime on a white background. You can imagine how easy it is to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Do not adjust your set.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, do not adjust your set.
Mr. Speaker, it is pitiful to show films lasting an hour and a half or two hours, which nobody understands. I agree that they are probably worthwhile movies, but they are neither in French nor in English. Perhaps some Polish people or some Ukrainians or Russians understand them because they are in their own language. But on the C.B.C.'s French network, they show movies in the original version with subtitles so that we can follow the story. There are people who cannot read or are unable to read them. Children cannot read them either. Let us say that they are in bed at that time, so their case is settled. But for the others, who must take the time to read and are not very fast readers, the picture changes so quickly that they do not have time to read the first word and forget the others or do not see them. Those movies should never be shown unless they are already dubbed, a written, a spoken translation.


Mr. Allard:: A sound track.


David Réal Caouette: A sound track. It is the same thing as a spoken translation. That is what I mean, a sound track.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have excellent programs. For instance, the one I saw last night called "Tirez au Clair", is a perfect program and its producer does a very good job. Another good program called "Le Sel de la Semaine" is also very interesting. "Aujourd'hui", a program we see every day on the French network, is also very good in the field of current topics. The producer has sometimes been blamed for inviting too many socialists, but, today, it seems to be better adopted. People of almost any tendency are invited so that the public will be aware of what is happening. I am all for it. We are not isolationists, people who want to be heard without hearing what the others have to say. No! We want the various schools of thought to be known. But, on the other hand, there
November 7, 1967

should be no monopoly in a certain field at the expense of the mass of people.
Mr. Speaker, when I had an interview with Jean Desprez, who is now dead, she had stated that the C.B.C. was full of dead wood. I did not say that. She was the one who was supposed to stand up for the C.B.C. Afterwards, Jean Duceppe, of Montreal, phoned to tell me that we should stop attacking the C.B.C., because the artists felt they were involved.
We are not speaking about the artists when we accuse the C.B.C. management. Jean Duceppe is one of our best actors on television. Jean Coutu was another. We have a great number of talented people who give good performances each week. We have nothing against those artists who are treated by private entreprise just as well as by the C.B.C.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Now, neither we nor the Secretary of State have accused the C.B.C. artists. She accused the administration, those who decide, who are in office, and those who hold office under Mr. Ouimet are hard to find. This one is not responsible, so you are sent to someone else. That someone else is not responsible either, so you are sent to another. You spend your time going about from one corner to the other, from one person to another, from pillar to post, and you finally get to see no one. That is the truth of the matter. People work from such a time to such a time, and that is it. That is public enterprise.
In private enterprise, on the other hand, channel 10 in Montreal, for instance, I can guarantee the general manager may still be there at 11 o'clock at night, thinking about the organization of his station. Go to Sherbrooke, it is the same thing there. Take channel 4, in Quebec city, it is the same thing. Take any private station, their people behave responsibly. That is where the difference lies, between those who act responsibly and those who are little concerned with responsibility, such as socialists, for instance; they are little concerned with such things. However, private enterprise must be kept active, and this holds true in every area.
Socialists have also changed their attitude over the last 20 years. I was here in 1946 when Mr. Coldwell was the leader of the C.C.F. party, successively called Social Democratic party, then New Democratic party. I think they changed their name again after that. In any case, they were all, body and soul, in favour of nationalization at that time. Today, they say that some degree of private
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting enterprise should be accepted. It must work in unison with public enterprise; one part private, one part public. I would like to see how it is done.
Give the C.B.C. a little private enterprise, and you will see that things will change. In my opinion, we could run the C.B.C. with $100 million and save $45 million by bringing in responsible people, employees who are satisfied with their salaries, their expenses, and who work from nine or ten o'clock in the morning until four or four thirty in the afternoon, taking coffee breaks, as we say even in French, in the morning and in the afternoon.
In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that employees should be treated like slaves. No.


Mr. Graffiey:: Des pauses-cafe.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, it is "pause-cafe" in French. I thank my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi, who is perfectly bilingual. But note that he did not say "pousse-cafe", but "pause-cafe", which is quite different.
Mr. Speaker, we must surely take corrective measures with regard to the C.B.C. management. Who will be the next president? We do not know. Only, let him be able to assume his responsibilities and be responsible, otherwise, as I said earlier, let us get rid of the C.B.C. and sell it to private enterprise. First, it would put an end to our present discussions and allow us perhaps to watch better shows or programs than those now being produced.
Mind you, this does not mean that we are granting full freedom to say or do everything on radio and television. We can always resort to the B.B.G. to present immoral radio or television programs from being shown. There is also legislation which parliament can pass. We can establish in Canada a broadcasting authority which would ensure that the shows and programs presented are such as to serve the best interests of our population and enrich the minds of our compatriots.
This is possible, because as things are going now, Mr. Speaker, next year, when we again consider the estimates of the C.B.C., they will not be around $145 million but they will be increased again. We might be up to $160 or $170 million by then, whereas private enterprise, I repeat, operates at about 50 or 60 per cent cheaper than the crown corporation. Counting on the fact that it is a crown corporation, that the people pay and the government votes the estimates they say: "Let's
3992	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting go". Money is spent haphazardly; it does not matter, as long as it is spent. As I said a while ago, there are loafers in the C.B.C. I, myself, have seen these well-paid loafers. Loafers, that means lazy people and there are enough of them; so let us eliminate them. Just for the sake of keeping somebody's job, are we going to keep on spending public moneys as we are doing now?
I know my words will irritate Mr. Ouimet and many others. But what I say is true, and we have all had proof of that. What I am saying now really happens, I am not making it up. When I say that separatists have been treated with kid gloves by the C.B.C. in the province of Quebec, I speak the truth. I gave as an example earlier the case of Aylmer, last night. In the case of Montreal, the fights in P;errefonds, for example, how did the C.B.C. happen to be there? Because there are separatists working for the C.B.C.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take a stand. Somebody has already said that the province of Quebec is just as smart as the others, and I really do believe that. However, there as elsewhere, there are people who only see one side of the coin and who cannot get along with the other people.
I heard Mr. Rene Levesque say in Vancouver the other day that there is no French problem there. Then he says: It is true and Premier Bennett is right; so French Canadians, come and live in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Which premier?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Bennett: Go and live in the province of Quebec. Fine solution. We have more unemployed in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. Let us add them to our own jobless.
Mr. Speaker, for six years, I have been asking the Conservative government when it was in office, and the Liberal government, to give our French-speaking population in western Canada, the service of our national radio and television network, and it has not been done yet. I was told, the other day, that the radio coverage would be extended to Vancouver-Victoria, as of November 1.


Mr. Prittie:: The 4th of December.


David Réal Caouette: Well, now it will start on December 4; that is a month and four days later than I was told. I am happy to hear that the radio service will start on December 4 and the western French-Canadian minority will be delighted to get it. However, they also
EMr. Caouette.]
DEBATES	November 7, 1967
want television service. When $145 million are available, instead of sending a large portion of it to Viet Nam, the Congo and Africa, we should begin by extending coverage to western Canada, to people who are Canadians the same as we are. They can get the English network. When an English network was requested for Malartic, in Abitibi, in my riding, I exerted pressures so that our English-speaking citizens could get that television station, served by Timmins. Today they have it.
Some will reply that it is not as far between Timmins and Malartic as it is in the west and I agree, but if we had started extending the service towards Vancouver six years ago, do you not think that it would have reached Vancouver by now?
But no, they prefer to go to Viet Nam. Is Viet Nam closer to us than Vancouver? Is the Congo closer to us? Is Africa closer to us? Is Moscow closer to us?
When I went to Moscow two years ago there were C.B.C. people there. I met some in London who found it hard to take the trouble of meeting us when we arrived.


An hon. Member:: It is the same thing in Paris.


David Réal Caouette: We arrived at 7 or 7.15 in the morning and there was not a soul from the C.B.C. to greet us.


Mr. Laniel:: It was too early.


David Réal Caouette: It was a delegation from the Canadian parliament which was going on a special mission to Moscow. There was not a single representative from the C.B.C.; no, that is for the others. They are well paid by us, though. If we were to refuse them the money to pay their salary, they would go on strike.
In Paris, it is the same thing. I will not give any names, but I could name one I called up on the telephone at two o'clock in the morning, in London, to ask him: ''What are you doing? Are you not coming to meet us?" His answer was. "Oh, you know, I was not too well aware of your arrival". He was not aware. If a coloured man from Africa had arrived there, he would have been immediately aware of it. He was not aware of it at the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: But they knew about Aylmer.
November 7, 1967


David Réal Caouette: Oh, yes, they were in Aylmer. When we went to Iran last year, the same thing happened. They do not see us, but we receive reports from all the corners of the world; they are there and paid by us. When parliamentary representatives travel in those countries, they are unseen, they can no longer be seen.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to make a complete sweep with a vacuum cleaner and remove that rottenness, because it reminds me of the Augean stables where 3,000 head of cattle had not been cleaned for 30 years. Hercules had to divert a river to clean those stables.
I think that it would be high time to divert the St. Lawrence river to clean the stables of the C.B.C. An hon. member just said that the St. Lawrence is polluted. Let us use the Ottawa river.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take any more of the time of the house; on the other hand, I do want to say I support wholeheartedly what the Secretary of State has said about certain sectors of the C.B.C.
It is high time we prescribe the necessary remedial action. Now, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-163 allows the members to make suggestions, but not to sling mud, as Mr. Ouimet says, and to give recognition to those who in the C.B.C. are competent and perform their duties with dignity. There are some, they are in a majority. But the C.B.C. officials should take their responsibilities and give the Canadian people programs of value, programs worthy of the C.B.C., in short programs which will be the pride of the Canadian nation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that next to the defence of the realm this is the most important subject to come up this year, namely, whether we are going to socialize the airwaves and, if we try, can we make it work. I read in tonight's Ottawa Journal the headline "Judy Stands Alone In C.B.C. Uproar." I want to tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that she does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: She represents a great cross-section of the Canadian people and their thinking on this matter. This is too big a subject to be buried in partisan politics. In this situation the hon. lady has to speak out. She is not only a minister of the crown but she has a responsibility to parliament and the Canadian people to be the champion of the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting freedom of the airwaves, which I claim is today very seriously threatened.
I should like to think that a mere change of management in the C.B.C. would settle these problems once and for all. Perhaps we could get a Donald Gordon or a Mr. Fisher to take over the job of policing the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: Which Fisher?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: But will this by itself correct the situation? It will not unless we stand behind the hon. lady, who has the responsibility of reporting to parliament on the C.B.C., when she uses forthright, if a little colourful, language. Unfortunately, from the beginning we tried to put the C.B.C. beyond the control of parliament and make it a crown corporation which would be above parliament. The result has been disastrous.
If we could And such a person to head the C.B.C.-I understand we are having some difficulty and are not exactly swamped with offers for this very important job-would he be backed up? Presumably the only way he could be backed up when he got into a pitched battle with the directors would be by appealing to the hon. lady or her successor. How much backing can he expect? I suspect that it is not fear which keeps the hon. lady from naming the people. She could name them; in fact, we all know who they are. If she does not want to name them, I am certainly not afraid to do so. I will read the list; they are well known to us all: Patrick Watson, Laurier LaPierre, Pierre Berton, Douglas Leiterman, Reeves Haggan, Sidney Bronstein, and such fringe benefit boys as Mr. Chaput and Mr. Levesque who are assisting in the plot to reduce Canada to a motley collection of fractured institutions.
Anybody who has been around for the last three years, has had his ears open and has watched a television set knows perfectly well that there is an unmistakable pattern connected with the difficulties experienced throughout the C.B.C. We are getting propaganda by concentration on only the negative side of questions. We do not hear the positive side.
Let us consider our young people. The young people of today are depicted on the C.B.C. over and over again as nothing but hippies. They all want the pill, they all want abortions, they all want free love. No such nonsense was ever before presented to the Canadian people. A good 90 per cent of the Canadian people, young people particularly, are just as fine as we or our parents were.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: But they are not being heard. It is not true that most of our young people are hippies and think in this vein. Only about 10 per cent of our young people fall into this category. That 10 per cent will always be with us. They are incapable of making rational decisions in their lives. It is terribly dangerous to bastardize the Canadian airwaves by encouraging only the negative, only the filthy, only the ugly.
Our young people have a right and a heritage, and I am glad the hon. lady has taken the step to at least bring this matter out into the open where something can and will be done about it. Nobody heading the C.B.C. today can say he does not know where the problem lies. I do not think anybody would take on this job unless he was a man of great courage, because it will not be an easy task. He may have to fight alone. If parliament will not get together and provide a little more solid backing for the people who know where the trouble is and are willing to take steps to correct it, I do not think we can expect to find anybody to take on the job.
This is a dual problem involving both management and programming. If anybody thinks there is any doubt whatever that this is right, I should like to spend a moment or two reading into the record evidence to support my contention. In a recent survey of C.B.C. programming it was shown that 80 items touched on American subjects or on the United States itself. Sixty-two out of the 80 were either overtly anti-American or played on United States problems and ills. Sixteen items dealt with the Viet Nam war. Fifteen out of the 16 items created impressions opposed to the United States role in Viet Nam and could have brought nothing but comfort and encouragement to Hanoi.
There have been complaints by Canadian diplomatic officials abroad who have been dismayed at the variance between what has been observed by them on the spot abroad and the impressions created by the C.B.C. With respect to communism, on 14 programs communism was given sympathetic treatment. Not once in the last two years was there any substantial criticism of a communist country or a communist philosophy. The Patrick Watson-Roy Faibish film, "The 700 Million", praising the accomplishments of mainland China and produced after 62 days in that country, was broadcast on no less than three occasions across this nation.


[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It showed nothing but happy, cheerful people, which, to me at least appears to be in strange contrast to the stories now coming through of the terrorist activities of the Red Guard. Young China now has no god but Mao.
The C.B.C. has not left religion alone. I do not say that we should only see people worshipping on Picture Page but it is passing strange that apparently there is nothing good and worthy of note going on any more in the Christian world. On 28 occasions Seven Days dealt with religious subjects and 22 of these programs were sarcastic or antagonistic in presenting some bizarre and unrepresentative aspect of religion. In the last program the slogan "Kill a Commie for Christ" was repeated several times. The United Church Observer, which by the way has become very broadminded, commented as follows on June 1:
When they did an item on religion, as they frequently did, it was likely to be a distortion of the bizarre.
That is an understatement if I ever heard one.
All the 29 programs produced by the C.B.C. concerning racial problems played up bitterness, injustice or extremism. Nothing was produced to show the notable advances made in legislation, education or in other areas. As everyone knows, this is not an easy subject to handle, but why is the negative side always shown? I say there is a plot, a well thought out and clever plot to reduce Canada to a group of fractured institutions.
I wish wholeheartedly that I could vote for the bill because it contains points with which I certainly agree. It says that the C.B.C. should promote national unity. I took careful count of all the programs I saw relating to national unity during the last year and I noted that some 70 per cent were on the negative side. There was limitless coverage of men such as Levesque and Chaput. One would think they are the only men of some standing. What opportunity is there for men like myself to say: I believe in a united Canada, a Canada of equal opportunity, a Canada without compulsion and without prejudice? I would like to see all members of this house get up and give their views on the subject. I venture to say that the Chaputs and the Levesques would be outnumbered by a hundred to one.
The minister finds herself in a bind. How can she be loyal to her party and to the
November 7, 1967	COMMONS
cabinet and still tell us the truth? The whole structure of the C.B.C. is soft at the top and rotten at the bottom.


An hon. Member:: I thought it was the other way around.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In less happy days I had to make my living as a lumberman and when there was a rotten tree in the bush the old, wise lumbermen said, "Do not shake the rotten tree". They called it "widow-maker". They said, "The top will come down and crush you". And so it would. I am sorry to see that we have had to wait for a lady to dare to shake the tree. Perhaps she is not afraid of being a widow. But I hope the whole rotten tree falls on someone and falls on him fast.
I would like to support what my colleague the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) said, namely, that we should send the subject matter of the bill to the committee. Will the committee unearth any more truth than we have already? We know the problem. The only thing that faces us is the solution to that problem, but if we pass the bill-and I have no doubt it will be passed because I believe it is a sincere effort to get to the root of the matter-will we give it the backing it deserves? Will we live up to it and decide to keep the airwaves of Canada free, clean and fit for the fine people who are still around, who have not been brainwashed and who still believe that their church, their school and their government will give of their best, people who have not all lost their nerve and have not subjected themselves to the defeatism which is only too rampant?
If there is no one in Canada who can handle the job of leading the C.B.C., then we had better appoint a board to do it. Perhaps we should give it a try because time is running out. Perhaps this bill will provide us with an answer. I am not prepared to say it will, but I think it is high time we stopped allowing this Tower of Babel called the C.B.C. to keep us disunited. I would hate to have to tear it down because I believe there is a future for the C.B.C. if we can solve the problems with which it has faced us. We need a great "E" for education, a great "E" for entertainment and a great "E" for excellence. If there are no people in this country who know the difference between filth and excellence perhaps we will have to import somebody who does, because I do not see the filth and degradation being peddled over the airwaves in the United States, which is so maligned by some of my friends, that I see in
DEBATES	3995
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the northern half of this continent which I always hoped and believed would give some leadership in this field.
I am a politician and I suppose I am unfit to undertake a job of this kind. It is not from lack of nerve or lack of knowledge of the subject because I know a rotten tree when I see one and I know that the sooner we cut it down and plant another clean, decent, strong one in its place, the better. When we get it there, let us have a fire guard and let us have someone with the know-how and the power to ensure that all our trees survive because we still need their shade and the fresh air which can only come from a living, clean-limbed tree.


Mr. Mongrain:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: En anglais, s'il vous plait.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Yes, sir. I heard the hon. member mention the names of two men as prospects for the job which Mr. Ouimet will be vacating shortly. He mentioned a certain Mr. Fisher. I know of two men by that name who are well known nationally. Would the hon. gentleman please tell us which one he meant?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I should like to clear up the misapprehension I may have created. I did not suggest either of these men as an ideal head of the C.B.C. I pointed out one facet of their character, namely courage. Mr. John Fisher has courage. He is a great salesman for Canada. Similarly, I have no doubt whatsoever about the other Mr. Fisher. If he wants to use his talents in this capacity, I believe he is quite capable and he has the courage to do so. Mr. Donald Gordon has made a great contribution to Canadian life and I am quite sure he has the courage to look into the mess, clean out the garbage and replace it with something of some merit.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if the debate today could have been televised I think there might have been more entertainment value in the program than in some of the programs we have seen in recent years.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It has been turned off now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have before us an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) after an excellent speech, which in effect would completely abolish the C.B.C. This is what he proposed in what I thought were very clear
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and concise terms. I know that in all probability I am not reflecting the general mood of the house when I say that personally I would take a very dim view of my government or any other government attempting to eliminate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think that the solution proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent-


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. member for Verdun makes such a statement about what I said I would appreciate it very much if he would read the text of my remarks tomorrow. If he does, I do not think he will make the statement he has made.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not need to read the text. I take the hon. gentleman at his word and I apologize if I misconstrued what he said. I was under the impression that he suggested the time had come to abolish the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If he did not, I apologize. For that matter, this suggestion was advanced by a fellow member of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), last night in a very entertaining speech, one which I enjoyed but with which I did not necessarily agree.
I think it is significant that Canadians in general depreciate anything that is Canadian and can see no good in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. With one eye on the clock, perhaps I could take the seven minutes available to me to point out the rather paradoxical attitude of most of the members of the official opposition when they castigate the C.B.C., praise the minister for her recent declaration and then engage in what I regard as rather unwarranted attacks on the hon. lady during the question period. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Bigg), who I thought spoke well and sincerely. He was not critical of the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), and I was rather pleased about that because it seems to me the hon. lady has been subjected to rather harsh treatment during the question period.
I have wondered about the furore in the house, particularly during the question period, over the fact that the Secretary of State simply said, in her own colourful style, what

many boards that have been set up to investigate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have said over the last decade. I believe the Fowler report mentioned at least 11 points which were found to conform with the findings of the internal committee set up by the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At the same time, I do not believe it is particularly appropriate that we should spend our time in castigating Mr. Ouimet, as some members have been doing. I think it has been very obvious to all of us who have been concerned with the problems of broadcasting, and I sat for some time on that particular committee, that there is a great malaise in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I suppose the internal set-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be modified, but that is what this bill is all about.
I do not believe that in today's world it is necessary that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be considered a competitor of private broadcasting. The corporation should, rather, be considered as an alternative for Canadians. I believe that we are too prone to forget the degree of assimilation of things that are Canadian by our good friends, the United States. If we are to survive as a nation we have to retain control over our communication media. I know of no better way of maintaining control over the media of communication in this country than by having a strong, viable Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which will fulfil its role. I think we agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not been able to achieve its potential in television. It has been seeking for leadership and until very recently that leadership has not been forthcoming. I believe this is something that is evident in the Glassco report, the Fowler report, the president's committee report, the white paper, and we found this to be so in the broadcasting committee.
At the same time, I must say I was quite impressed with Mr. Ouimet as an individual when he appeared before the committee. He was extremely loyal to the organization over which he presided. He may have been a little reluctant in some areas or in agreeing with the general assessment of members, but I found him to be a very good advocate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, very knowledgeable and very forthright in his answers. I do not believe Mr. Ouimet should be singled out as the sole cause of the problems that confront the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now. When I listened to
November 7, 1967

some of the speeches made during this debate I wondered if they had not been written by a Barry Goldwater or a Ronald Reagan. It seemed to me that the solution to the problem suggested by one hon. member was that Canadians should never see anything except "Anne of Green Gables". I do not believe we are going to do a job for the Canadian people by protecting them from exposure to provocative programs. I know that in the opinion of many, including myself, there is a very thin line between a provocative program and outright smut and filth.
Certainly, as one who participated in all the deliberations of the committee on the Seven Days question, I feel that where the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Mr. Ouimet were amiss was in not firing some of the people responsible for lack of judgment. The same people were responsible for the bias in that program which was obvious from the day it was conceived. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc), Canadian National Railways-replacement of Ocean Limited; the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble),	Industry-Georgian
bay-consideration under designated area program; the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), Grain-proposed increase in amount available for cash advances.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-105, to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation-Mr. Orange-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two with regard
Private Bills
to this bill before it passes. It presents the house with a very interesting problem. From time to time we hear a good deal of talk about ownership of Canadian industry by Canadians, and we hear a great deal of talk urging Canadians to take a greater part in controlling Canada's destiny. This bill, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion provides a prime example of the area in which Canadians should move.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The former minister of finance has written many books, most of them saying that Canadians should control their own industrial development and that it should not be controlled by foreigners. This private bill shows the area of endeavour where Canadians ought to exert themselves. Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation wishes to build a pipe line into the Northwest Territories. In committee we asked whether in granting permission to build such a pipe line we would be granting a monopoly right to transport oil, gas or solids in the years ahead from the Northwest Territories to the rest of Canada. The reply was that a second pipe line could be built, of course, but it is obvious that a second pipe line would be uneconomical and probably would not be built. If permission to build this pipe line is granted the company to be incorporated will be given monopoly rights.
The company was also asked whether it would allow Canadians to subscribe to its shares. One of those answering for the company said, "Well, first we want to be incorporated, we must appear before the Energy Board, but at this time we really have no intention of allowing Canadians to participate." I want to know how this attitude is to be taken in the light of exhortations to Canadians to take a greater interest in their industrial development and to exercise greater control over their industries and resources. Are we to give this company seeking incorporation a monopoly in the Northwest Territories where, as far back as the early 1920's, oil was discovered? Are we to give this company, which does not want Canadians to participate in it, a monopoly?
Who will control this company? It is said that Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation is to be controlled partly by Imperial Oil Limited, which is a company controlled in the United States, partly by Mobil Oil of Canada Limited, another company controlled in the United States, and partly by the Acquitaine group which in essence is a corporation controlled by the French government. Are three foreign

November 7, 1967'
Private Bills
concerns to be allowed to come before this house during private members' hour and ask for a monopoly to move oil from one part of Canada to another?
This matter strikes at the very heart of my Canadianism. I want to participate or at least I want the privilege or being allowed to do so should I wish to. I am interested in Canada, as others are. Look at the interest Canadians showed in the Athabasca tar sands. That venture was oversubscribed by Canadians. Something like $12 million was permitted to be subscribed by Canadians and many were turned away after the venture was oversubscribed. Albertans were turned away. They were also turned away after many Canadians had oversubscribed the Alberta gas trunk line which was developed in Alberta some years ago.
Why are Canadians not to be allowed to participate in this entity which seeks incorporation? Some personnel of the company have said, "Oh, well, this is a speculative venture and therefore Canadians will not want to participate in it." Canadians should say for themselves whether they wish to participate. At least they should have the opportunity of participating and the opportunity of eventually controlling the company.
What is to happen here? Eventually control of the entity seeking incorporation may vest in the Aquitaine group which is controlled by the French government. That is not a healthy picture and is not one that should commend itself to those who took the former minister of finance seriously.
It is all very well for some to say that Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation is to build a line to the Zama field which is inside the Northwest Territories and that Canadian companies may, should they wish, hook another pipe line into that of Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation. That argument is beside the point. Once the pipe line is built the company seeking incorporation will be the major mover of oil and commodities in the area and, as I have said, it will be uneconomical to build another pipe line. Because the company moves something like 8 per cent of the oil produced in Alberta it should not be given a monopoly for the entire Northwest Territories, which has enormous proven oil reserves.
In the 1920's the Norman Wells oil field was discovered to contain reserves. Is this house to allow this company a monopoly to operate in that area? I hope that other hon. members will vigorously oppose passage of

this bill. Until provision is made for Canadians to subscribe to the capital stock of the company and for Canadians to control it eventually, we should resist its passage. We in Canada have the right to guide our own destiny in the years ahead.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to say anything today. Nevertheless I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia on what he has said and say that I could not agree with him more.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The history of the discovery of the Rainbow oil field is the best argument I know for the creation of a Canada development corporation or a resources development corporation-call it what you will. What happened originally is a national disgrace. At the time of the original discovery Mr. Rudolph, president of Banff Oil, tried to find capital in Canada. He was not able to do so and as a result this viable oil field fell into the hands of a United States company and the Aquitaine group controlled by the French government. Had we at that time been able to rely upon the services of a resource development corporation I am confident that at the very least we could have maintained majority ownership in Canadian hands.
A development corporation need not enter into the actual development of oil fields or oil pools as a majority partner, but there is no reason why it would not become involved as a minority partner once an oil field or oil bed has been discovered. Indeed, its objectives might go beyond that. The corporation might also be concerned with search, exploration and development work in areas of the north where oil bodies have not yet been discovered.
There is no reason why the activities of such a corporation should cause fear or apprehension in business circles. There is no reason, in my opinion, why private mining interests in Canada should hesitate to accept the existence of a government minority role in endeavours of this sort.
The federal government has full jurisdiction over the natural resources of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. There is no constitutional controversy about that. Today the Supreme Court confirmed the jurisdiction of the federal government over offshore mineral rights. So there is no reason why the federal government through a resource development corporation should not participate,
November 7, 1967

hand in hand with private interests, in the [DOT]exploration and development of these resources. Surely direct participation by the *Canadian people through its government would be a unifying factor in this country's development. Of course, it is only in the areas I have mentioned, where the federal government has complete jurisdiction over national resources, that we would be completely free from charges of interference with provincial rights. The arguments in favour of the establishment of a development corporation are so overwhelming as to make me hopeful that the government will not delay further in setting up such a corporation.
All this has a bearing upon the particular matter which is before the house at the moment, the establishment of a company to build a pipe line from the Northwest Territories into western Canada. I feel, as does the hon. member for Acadia, that there should be an opportunity for Canadians to participate directly in this venture. I will go further. I believe we should not allow this bill to go through the house until a resources development corporation such as I have described has been set up.
I expect we shall be legislating in this field within the next few months. Surely it would be worth while delaying any final decision on the bill before us until a development corporation has been set up along the lines 1 have indicated. There is no doubt in my mind that the government and the Canadian people should be represented as fully as possible in the development of the resources of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The French people are represented directly through the French government's participation in Acquitaine de Paris. If we allow this company to build a pipe line in the absence of direct Canadian participation, I suggest, along with the hon. member for Acadia, that we would in effect be throwing away part of our heritage. As a member of this house I certainly cannot support the passage of this bill until an opportunity is open to us to participate directly in this endeavour.
e (6:20 p.m.)
I realize I have been throwing out an idea which prior to today has not been studied. Nevertheless I submit it is an idea worthy of the government's attention. There is one way in which Canada can participate in this enterprise. If the company is wise it can perhaps relieve the pressure for direct government participation by allowing public
Private Bills
participation through the purchase of shares. But if this is not done, or even if it is done, I feel quite strongly that the government should consider participating in a minority way through a development corporation in this pipe line. As the hon. member for Acadia has pointed out, it promises to control for some time the pipe line business from the Northwest Territories to western Canada. I feel strongly that if the French people are to be represented in this endeavour then at the very least the Canadian people should have such a chance, but they are not being given it. I urge the government to withhold approval of this bill until a Canadian development corporation has been set up and we have a chance to participate directly.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, for more years than I can recall the C.C.F. and the N.D.P. have been advocating at every available opportunity the same proposition which Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie has just put to us, a proposition that was accepted at least on paper by the government but not proceeded with, namely, that there is ample opportunity in our economy for the people of Canada to participate through their government in some of these developments, not only so that the benefits from the development of resources can indirectly accrue to them through such a corporation but also because of the benefit of participation by the Canadian people in Canadian ownership of resources and resource development. As I say, we have been advocating this sort of thing for many years because the necessity for it could be seen a long time ago.
I wish that the wise head of the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie rested on the shoulders of some cabinet members so that they could see the wisdom of the remarks he has made and the remarks that we of the C.C.F. and N.D.P. have been making for many years. The suggestion that the bill not be proceeded with until guarantees of this sort are given is a commendable one.
Like the hon. member for Acadia I too am quite concerned about the degree to which not only this proposed company but many other companies which are controlled by people who do not even live in Canada own our natural resources without that sort of responsibility to Canada which Canadians would have. The N.D.P. has been in the forefront of this fight for a long time now. Hon. members know that on every occasion upon which a bill to incorporate some kind of company with the element of foreign ownership in it

November 7, 19G7
Private Bills
has come before parliament we in the N.D.P., until now, have been alone in our objections to this kind of approach in promoting the incorporation of companies to do certain things in Canada when those companies are owned and controlled by foreigners.
I am not suggesting that no one else is interested in this matter. I simply say that for some time now a few of us in the N.D.P. have carried the brunt of the load in trying to ensure that companies which have this element of foreign control in them come to the point where they agree with the contentions of the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister about the necessity of having Canadian ownership of resources and of these corporations.
I think there is an opportunity here for Imperial Oil, Mobil Oil and the other group, Acquitaine of France, to exhibit to Canadians the degree of responsibility which we think they should have, namely, to say to parliament through the sponsor of the bill that they are quite prepared to meet the guide lines outlined by the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council about Canadian ownership. If they do that then at least one of the obstacles to the passage of the bill would be removed. The other obstacle, also outlined by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, is the necessity of participating in the development of some of these resources ourselves.
This bill was dealt with in the transport and communications committee on June 20. The proceedings in that committee are extremely revealing with respect to some of the things which this company says it hopes and intends to do. As recorded on page 2 of the committee proceedings, a Mr. Barroll, vice president of Mobil Oil Canada Limited, pointed out some of the prospects for oil resources in the Northwest Territories and said:
In addition to this, we have excellent indications from drilling in the area that there will be an extension into the Northwest Territories. These wells, although no information has been released on them, were drilled and tested last winter. The information is still considered confidential. They are located within a mile of the border of the Northwest Territories. They are reported as having a good oil show and are reported as being oil wells.
One of the interesting aspects is his comment that these wells "were drilled and tested last winter." I assume he was talking about the winter of 1966-67 because his testimony was given on June 20 in Ottawa and even in Ottawa June 20 is not considered to be winter.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that the company made its initial application to parliament in February, 1966, the winter before the drilling and the testing took place to which Mr. Bar-roll referred. This may have no great bearing on whether or not the bill should be proceeded with but it does point out that in effect there is an attempt to draw upon all possible reasons for the passage of the bill, including things that happened to come along after the promoters of Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation conceived the idea of incorporating the company and establishing themselves in this particular area. Another interesting bit of evidence given by Mr. Barroll is found on page 3 of the proceedings. He refers to the system of the Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation, and talks about it connecting with the terminals of Transmountain Pipe Lines and Interprovincial Pipe Lines. Then he continues:
These are the main trunk line systems that supply crude oil to the west coast refineries and the general export area here on the northeast coast of Washington.
In addition, of course, the system ties into the Interprovincial system which extends down through the United States to eastern Canada and supplies the important prairie markets and the markets in the Great Lakes area and, of course, the Sarnia market which is the principal destination for this crude.
He goes on further to point out that there are additional markets and that the Chicago area was considered to be an area short of crude oil at that particular time, June of this year. I draw from his remarks the conclusion that if this company is incorporated and if the particular pipe line which they envisage to be built under the aegis of this company is in fact built, it will be for the purpose of draining the oil out of the Northwest Territories into other parts of Canada and into the United States. I do not think this is a proposition which should be accepted, especially in the light of the remarks of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he spoke out west or in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory, whichever it was, a few days ago. In that speech he complained bitterly about the fact that industries which have been developing in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon Territory up until now have been extractive industries which have relied simply upon the prime raw natural resource.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development thought that this practice should no longer continue. He did not think it was good enough for the people in the
November 7, 1967

Northwest Territories that industry should come in, develop and exploit the raw materials of the natural resource, and then leave as quickly as they can, taking with them the profits, after they have moved the raw material out of the territories to some other part of the nation or to some other part of the world in order that it can be developed, manufactured and refined.
Here again we have an indication of what I hope is government policy and not just another speech by the minister. Here we have an indication of a desire to develop industry in the north, rather than continue to participate in the exploitation of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories simply as a bottomless pit from which corporations can draw their raw materials and natural resources, and remove them as quickly as possible from the area to be refined and manufactured in some other part of the nation or in some other part of the world.
The consequences of this are very bad indeed because it means in effect that the people who live in the area obtain just the bare minimum amount of income and employment form the natural resources in the area. It means also that Canada as a whole suffers, because in order for us to become a nation, with some force to our economy, a nation in which we can establish a continually rising standard of living, we must put more effort into transforming our natural resources into the finished products at points as close as possible to the sites of the raw materials, and in particular in the nation itself.
Even if for no other reason than the proposition that these three companies wish to incorporate another pipe line company for the purpose of removing the oil from the Northwest Territories as quickly as possible, I think the bill should flounder, especially in the light of the declaration made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development just a short while ago. Part of his speech was given some publicity in the financial pages of some of our Canadian newspapers. This would seem to indicate that the financial editors of our daily newspapers across the nation respect the thoughts expressed by the minister.
I know the minister has a pretty extensive propaganda campaign operating out of his department. We know also that press releases and statements are issued with almost the same regularity and in almost the same volume as is accomplished by the Hansard
Private Bills
printers. However, occasionally there is contained within the speeches or statements something which we can grasp and which we can say makes sense. The recent speech of the minister about development in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, in which he said that the natural resources there should be used to the fullest possible extent for the purpose of maintaining employment for the people who are there, makes sense.
I should like to assist the minister in reaching that objective, because I wish to assist the Canadian people in reaching an objective which will ensure a strong and forceful economy. I do not think I could provide the proper degree of assistance to that end if I were to participate in supporting the bill before us at the present time.
There is a tremendous amount of other information contained in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on transport and communications, which considered this bill. Mr. Barroll at one stage summarizes seven points in favour of the incorporation of this particular company. At this juncture I do not intend to deal with them in their entirety, but they certainly are interesting and worth expanding and commenting upon. Point number seven we believe is germane to the trend of the discussion here today on this bill. As reproduced at page 4 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence for June 20, 1967, it reads as follows:
Finally, the people of Canada have a direct financial interest in development of petroleum resources in federally administered territories. It is to the advantage of Canada, we believe, to pass enabling legislation permitting the development of these resources so as to accelerate return to the government of Canada of royalty and lease sale revenue.
Let us analyse the import of that particular thought. The company representatives are telling us that it is in the financial interest of the people of Canada to develop our petroleum resources in federally administered territories. I agree with that. This is just the point I have been making up to this moment, namely that we should develop them to the ultimate degree possible. But if we permit the passage of this bill and the incorporation of this company we will not, as Mr. Barroll said we should, be developing our petroleum resources in federally administered territories to the direct financial interest of the people of Canada. We will be developing them to the direct financial interest of the people of Canada only if we develop them to the fullest extent possible in the

November 7, 1967
Private Bills
area itself, and not participate in any effort to move the oil out as quickly as possible into some other part of the world.
Mr. Barroll said that we should pass enabling legislation, as he put it, to accelerate return to the government of Canada of royalty and lease sale revenue.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I think this is a pretty narrow and shallow base upon which to found an argument of that sort. We should be concerned, and I suppose the Minister of Finance is in a way, about the royalty and lease sale revenue. We should be more concerned about tax revenue from the company, the provision of employment for people in the area and the development of natural resources to the maximum degree possible. That will not be the case if this bill receives passage.
I see you attempting to rise, Mr. Chairman, and I assume that if my time has not expired it will very soon. I will take my seat now. As I said, there was a great deal of information given to the committee which provides food for thought and evidence of the reasons we should not give this bill the desired passage.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, I would dislike very much to let this bill pass without saying a few words about it. I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Acadia who touched upon the two main points in issue here. There is one additional point I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. It is wise that we understand that the three companies involved, namely Imperial Oil, Mobiloil and Banff-Aquitaine, will each own 33J per cent of the stock. I should point out that Banff will own 3-J per cent and the Aquitaine group will own 30 per cent, so together they will own 33 J per cent.
It is fair to say that two of these companies have no financial base in Canada in the sense that Canadians own stock in these companies, and I refer to Mobiloil and Banff-Aquitaine. This emphasizes the point made by the hon. member for Acadia. Since there is no opportunity for Canadians to purchase the stock of these companies, there is no way in which Canadians could in the long run purchase these companies, something which I would hope could happen in respect of most companies of this type in Canada in the long run.
Surely it is completely wrong for us to give a new company special privileges such as those sought through this bill. Some of us

have had conversations with the president of Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation which would indicate that in the near future an opportunity will be provided Canadians to purchase stock of this company. I have been informed today that this company has put $10 million worth of first mortgage bonds on the market. At first glance one might think the company has gone some way in correcting the disadvantage we see in respect of foreign owned companies operating in Canada. However, if one looks at this situation he must agree that this is not so. What the company is in fact asking us to do is contribute our money to the company's development, with the company retaining complete control. The ownership of bonds does not give the owner the right to vote or an opportunity to share in the profits. One does get his money back, with interest, but does not share in the profits of any large development the company may undertake in the future.
There is one other point which should be made in respect of this company. There is a provision which would allow the company to use its funds, or the funds of the Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation-and we should be careful to make that distinction-for exploring and developing wells any place in the Northwest Territories. This means the corporation need not show any profit and will be able to avoid paying income or corporation taxes in this way. The company could readily use its profit from the pipe line operation for exploration and development. We have been assured that this is not the intention. Perhaps we should accept that statement, but the opportunity is there. Consequently I feel that this provision requires some modification before the bill is passed.
In my opinion this is a bad bill and I cannot support it.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, one of the main points of opposition to this bill raised by the hon. member for Acadia was that it is clear that the intention of the participating firms seeking the establishment of this pipe line corporation is not to allow Canadian participation. That hon. member made this point very clear, and while the same feature has been in my mind as well, I shall not take up any more time of the committee to make additional comments in that regard.
One aspect of this matter which does deserve elaboration and further comment at this time came out very clearly during the committee hearing on June 20 held to consider the arguments pro and con. Let me refer
November 7, 19G7

specifically to the testimony of Mr. Bredin. When dealing with the tax advantage aspect of this proposition he said quite clearly and unequivocally that one of the purposes for establishing this pipe line corporation was to allow it to enter into a field of activity quite apart from its prime purpose, the transmission of petroleum. We have not been told the extent to which it might get into this activity of the oil and gas business in order to take advantage of certain sections of the Income Tax Act. It is not clear to me why a subsidiary of parent firms which are already in the gas and oil production business would want to take part in the same business. We have been told that there would be tax advantages and that the company could apply under our income tax laws for certain write-offs or deduction of expenses for drilling and developping.
It is true under existing law that a pipe line corporation must act as a common carrier, but it is difficult to find out accurately the extent to which this fact will have any practical result. This company if incorporated by this parliament would have to act as a common carrier. But in fact whose products would it be carrying? It seems to me that in the immediate period after incorporation, if incorporation were granted, it would be carrying only the products of the firms that are parent to it, and no corporations engaged in the oil and gas business in this part of the country would be able to avail themselves of the service this common carrier would have to provide.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Nowhere in the course of the proceedings of June 20 was this matter cleared up. I say again that I am somewhat suspicious about the prospects of a subsidiary pipe line corporation wanting authority to get into the oil and gas business, which business its parent firms are already engaged in. I am somewhat suspicious that even though required to be a common carrier, this supposed common carrier would in fact be acting exclusively as a carrier for the products of its parent firms and would not be engaged in an arm's length type of transaction with those firms.
I have said that other implications of the bill before us, while perhaps even more important than those to which I have referred, have been dealt with by the hon. member for Acadia and my colleague the hon. member for Skeena. I have no intention of taking up any more time dealing with those matters. I think, however, that one should not lightly pass a bill which would 27053-253
Private Bills
have the effect of incorporating a pipe line operation controlled by corporations none of which allow for the degree of Canadian participation which a country like ours would want.
There is a great deal of insistence these days that we take more effective steps to guarantee, or attempt to guarantee, that the development of our resources shall be effectively maintained under Canadian sovereign control. It is one thing to state this objective in a political or theoretical sense, but the effect is quite the reverse when day after day, month after month, year after year specific, tangible, economic decisions are made which have the effect of removing from Canadian control or even the possibility of Canadian control resource development firms operated or controlled by interests outside Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, just before the bill passes I should like to mention
one or two matters that I forgot to bring to the attention of hon. members earlier. No other speaker has yet mentioned them. There has been a great deal of talk today about corporate entities taking their Canadian responsibilities seriously. I say to the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot expect a foreign company to accept corporate responsibility and meet the requirements of Canadians when it is wholly based in a country outside Canada and its only desire in participating in Canadian industry is to make money. As soon as such a company stops making money its corporate responsibility appears to cease. This has been the history in the past and I say it will be the situation in the future.
Therefore it is only prudent and wise that we ensure that in developing this country Canadians play a part. We must do this because we cannot expect foreign companies to accept corporate responsibility in Canada.
I should like to refer to another point that has not yet been mentioned. There is no real hurry for this pipe line to be developed. As reported at page 2 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of June 20 last, Mr. Barroll told the committee:
To answer these questions, I think it is apparent that the reason we request a federal charter is so that, if crude oil in suitable volumes is discovered in the Northwest Territories, we would be in a position to proceed with construction-
In other words, the company is not even going to proceed with construction of the pipe line until the proven reserves are
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting developed to a sufficient quantity. I say to the committee that there is no real urgency to pass this bill today. We should take the time to examine the bill in greater detail. I would prefer that the bill be sent back to committee so that the authorities may appear before the committee again, and we state quite emphatically that they will not be given the charter for which they are asking unless Canadians have a right to participate, not only by way of buying bonds but in the development of the pipe line and its management. We should demand participation in the making of decisions with respect to the development of this vast area.
I said earlier today that our passing this bill would grant the company a monopoly in an area of huge reserves. The estimated reserves in the Mackenzie river basin of the Northwest Territories are nine billion barrels of oil. In the Eagle plain plateau the estimate is one billion barrels. In the Peel plateau the estimate is half a billion barrels. In the Mackenzie and Franklin mountains area it is estimated that the reserves are half a billion barrels. In the Liard plateau the estimate is a reserve of one third of a billion barrels. So we are talking about granting to a pipe line company a monopoly in an area of huge oil reserves.
It is not a minor monopoly that we will be giving foreign companies in order to perform some trivial little task in Canada and act as servants of Canadians. We will be giving them a monopoly in this area. We will be giving a foreign corporation the right to control the transportation of our raw resources and the right to develop our raw resources.
I believe they are asking for a little too much, particularly when one considers that the whole question hinges upon the big "if". That is, if crude oils are developed, they will start construction. It is well to know that last winter a great deal of exploratory work was carried out in the area, and a similar amount of exploratory work will be carried out this winter.


The Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted for private members hour has expired.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. McCutcheon.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour I had an opportunity to speak for six or seven minutes on the bill before us. At that time I pointed out that I found it rather paradoxical that the same people who paid tribute to the Secretary of State for her recent statements pertaining to the C.B.C. and who said it was a true reflection of the feeling of most Canadians and of most members of the house would take advantage of the question period to castigate her, to suggest her resignation and to attempt to embarrass her. It is ironic that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who appeared to be very concerned with the minister's statement went even farther when we were discussing the very controversial program "This Hour Has Seven Days" in the broadcasting committee.
I think the minister has probably done us all a favour in stating concisely in her own colourful terms what essentially had been said on numerous occasions by the investigating bodies that had been set up over almost a decade to examine the operations of the C.B.C. I also stated that I felt this was not the time to criticize the president of the C.B.C., as some hon. members have done. I think that he has served this country well and has done his best as president of the corporation. He has presided over the C.B.C.'s operations at a time when the corporation has found it difficult indeed to make the transformation from radio to television. My personal view, as one who has sat on that particular committee, is that the whole structure of the C.B.C. management has become too unwieldy and, as has been pointed out in many briefs, editorials and articles, communication between management and what we like to call the creative force has been limited. I think this was best exemplified by the debate on the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" when it became obvious to us
November 7, 1967

that the producers of this particular program had little or no supervision for almost two years. This resulted in the unfortunate incidents which marred that television season.
I know the minister would like to get the bill through this evening and I know there are one or two other speakers who would like to participate at this stage of the debate. At present there is an amendment before us which must be disposed of. If the amendment is accepted it will not result in a defeat of the government or the minister, but will rather be a defeat for all members of parliament in that perhaps we will not have done justice to the very progressive bill which is before us for second reading. The issue that is before the house is the acceptance or rejection of the principle of the bill, which is the formation of a new board or a new medium to control not only the C.B.C. but also private industry and, what is more important, the implementation of a national broadcasting policy.
I was very impressed by the minister's speech last week. I thought it covered all the points and left the door open for desirable amendments when the bill reaches the committee stage. The minister made it quite obvious to everyone that she would welcome constructive criticism and any amendments that may be proposed at the committee stage which would improve the bill, and this is the function of parliament. Clearly that function would be circumvented were we to accept the amendment before the house, which would kill the bill and, what is more, kill the principle, to which we all adhere, that Canada needs a national broadcasting policy.
As is always the case when we discuss a subject as emotional as the C.B.C., extreme suggestions are made from many parts of the house, as was the case today when several members proposed that the C.B.C. be eliminated. I do not happen to share that view and I am entitled to my opinion as are other people. I do not happen to think that private broadcasting has done such a wonderful job in the country. There is really no relationship between the programming on private radio and television stations, when we compare their day to day operations, and the promises they usually make when they are seeking a licence. I have no television station in my own riding, although I have one of the finest radio stations in North America. I say this as a result of the many awards which CKVL has won in international competition. I come from an area of the country in which we do 27053-2531
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting have a choice of many programs on television since we have the dubious privilege of watching United States television stations which are beamed into our homes directly across the border.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If we, as Canadians, are to discover the greatness of this country and reach the potential promised in this centennial year, then it is imperative that we should have control over the medium of communications. We have taken steps in previous years to maintain some degree of control over newspapers. I feel it is equally important that we maintain control over all mediums of communication. If management has not been up to par, has not given the leadership necessary, then this is no reflection on the corporation itself. This is a reflection upon management, and perhaps upon government for allowing these positions to remain open for such a length of time. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation per se. It exists and must continue to exist.
I believe that the standard set by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is one which private broadcasting tries to equal or surpass and is a constant reminder that there are alternatives to private radio and private television. I often wonder what the standards of private radio and television would be if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were not available as an alternative or to provide competition. We have the same situation in connection with the railways, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, in connection with the airways and in connection with many other fields of our economic life.
There are I think some very laudable objectives in this bill. For instance there is the statement in one section of the bill that Canadians are entitled to broadcasting services in English and in French as public funds become available. This is an objective that private radio and television would not meet. Private broadcasting would not meet that objective because it would not necessarily be profitable. There was a void in the Toronto area in French language broadcasting, and private enterprise did not move into1 that area. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done so and will continue to do so-in many other parts of the country where, because of population or geographical reasons it is not feasible for private industry to operate a station at a profit, as they are entitled to do.
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about separatism, particularly within Radio Canada. This brings me to another objective of the bill, and that is that the broadcasting systems in Canada should work for the cause of national unity. There is a connection between this desirable objective of broadcasting and the separatist movement in the province of Quebec, and the degree to which the separatists have or have not infiltrated the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I suspect there are many separatists working for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There are separatists in the House of Commons. There are separatists working in the railways and in all fields of endeavour. I feel it is safe to say that in the province of Quebec about 10 per cent of the population endorses separatism for one reason or another. By the law of averages, some of these people of course have to be working for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, whatever we do about separatists in the corporation, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) suggests and show "Anne of Green Gables" five hours a night. As I said earlier, when I listened to his speech I was not sure whether he wrote it or whether Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan wrote it. It reflects reactionary policy, which I do not believe is in tune with modern times.
I am as concerned about the separatist movement as anybody in the House of Commons. I was concerned on Friday or Saturday night, I forget which, when the C.B.C. national news found it necessary to take perhaps five minutes to devote to Mr. Gregoire speaking from Paris, as he explained his fund raising mission for the separatists, and how he was going to name the five or six other members of the House of Commons who endorsed his movement. I feel this was a mistake in judgment. I had more irate calls as a result of that program than any other program in months. Such a program tends to confuse the issue, tends to distort the strength of the separatist movement and tends to attract to the separatist movement what I like to call the lunatic fringe. I refer to those people who endorse a movement for the sake of publicity which, all too frequently, the C.B.C. and Radio Canada seem prone to put at their disposal.
There is something very fundamental here, and that is we cannot eradicate separatism simply by pretending it does not exist. Modern television has a duty to show separatist demonstrations when they occur. It also has
[Mr. Mackasey.l
a duty to show anti-separatist manifestations as well. Recent coverage of separatist activities in Pierrefonds, intentionally or unintentionally distorted the real strength of the outburst. I am more concerned about the separatists who use their position within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to slant the news. I think the broadcasting committee of which I was a member, came to the conclusion that there was definite bias shown in the program "Seven Days", bias against the United States being in Viet Nam. One tendency shown was a degree of irresponsibility which resulted from a desire to build up an audience rating through sensationalism. While we want to see radio and television used to foster national unity, the decision as to what kind of program would help the cause of unity should not be a decision of members of parliament. I feel we are about the worst judges in the world of good programs. We spend all our time discussing programming. How many of us are really objective about programs? How many of us like or dislike a program depending on whether or not it reflects our political bias?
I remember the house wasting the better part of a question period discussing a program called "The Open Grave". This was before the program had appeared on television. After it had appeared on television we wasted another week praising it because it won awards all over the world. I think we are, and I include myself, poor judges of what a good program is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is a good judge?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The people who will judge programming will be the people who will assume the responsibility under this new broadcasting measure and not members of parliament. Our job is to debate this bill, then see that it is operative; to reduce or eliminate political patronage to the fullest extent; to make certain we get the best possible people for the job. After having appointed the best possible people, we should let them get on with their work with a minimum of political interference. This is what our job is. They are the people who will decide whether or not private industry and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are fulfilling the mandate they will be given by this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes.
November 7, 1967


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member likes the stimulation of a question now and again when he speaks, because it arouses him. He has placed members of parliament in a very low category in respect of being judges of artistic productions and so on. Who are the supermen in this country who are so much better able to judge the value of programs than this cross section of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: The public.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member's questions always stimulate me because they come from an intelligent source. That intelligence was not reflected in his question. It was an exception to the normally intelligent questions he asks.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member must do better than that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point is that when the bill is adopted and when the government appoints the proper people to the roles designated in the bill, for better or worse it will be their responsibility to decide what is creative, and not the responsibility of members of parliament.
In the past when dealing with broadcasting we have said what it is politically expedient to say. I have seen examples of that in this debate. Some hon. members castigated management and those responsible managerially for "This Hour has Seven Days" because they thought the people of this country expected them to castigate the corporation. They castigated the minister's attitude in the house and in the committee because it was the thing to do, because it was considered popular to castigate the minister. Now when the editorials support the minister, and I shall refer to some of them, these hon. members now support the minister. An overwhelming majority of editorials support the minister; the attitude of those editorials was reflected in the remarks of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) who praised the hon. lady this afternoon, saying that he endorsed everything she said. The hon. member is a man of honour; I agree with his statement. His attitude is not that of other members of his party. But that is the beauty of democracy. There are differences of opinion in the opposition. The opposition is not new; its members have been in this house for some months.


William Heward Grafftey: It is the same government, is it not?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We know that different philosophies are espoused by different members of the opposition. We have heard them. One speaker advocates the destruction of the C.B.C. and the next opposition speaker praises it.


An hon. Member:: Read what your side said.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have differences of opinion, and that is the way it should be.


An hon. Member:: Discuss them in the Liberal caucus.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The	hon. member	for
Athabasca had the courage of his convictions when he said that the Secretary of State should be applauded for her courage, and for saying what she felt ought to be said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The	Montreal Star	of
November 6, 1967, had this headline over a column, "Criticism of C.B.C. fully justified".


William Heward Grafftey: This is a great speech.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The	hon. member	for
Brome-Missisquoi should be careful. Usually he patterns his remarks on editorials appearing in the Montreal Star. In this instance that newspaper endorses the Secretary of State.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At the end of my speech.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he care to compare the editorial that appeared in the Montreal Star two weeks ago last Thursday with the column he has in his hands? Would he care to read that former editorial?


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will not do that; it would not suit him.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is very interesting. If one were to compare the remarks of the hon. member for Royal as made in front of the committee and as made last week in the House of Commons the contrast would be most interesting.


Miss LaMarsh:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that the issue before the house this evening is not
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting my position, but the question of approval in principle of the broadcasting bill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is exactly the point I have been trying to make.


William Heward Grafftey: Really?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If we have not followed the bill very closely it is only because the Pharisees-and I use that word advisedly-took advantage of the question period to castigate the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, no.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let us look at the questions; how do they compare with speeches such as the one made by the hon. member for Athabasca this afternoon. He praised the minister and said, in fact, "Go ahead, Judy; we appreciate what you are doing."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is the best sermon we have yet heard.


An hon. Member:: Read more from the Montreal Star.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: An hon. member asks me to read more from the Montreal Star. Dusty Vineberg writing a column headed, "Television and radio" writes as her headline, "Judy only said what Fowler said". We know this to be so, and that is the point many hon. members have made. In saying that the C.B.C. had been mismanaged the Secretary of State merely said in capsule form what bodies investigating the C.B.C.-and this includes the president's committee-have said over the years.
How are we to rectify this mismanagement? I submit we can do that by passing Bill No. C-163 which the minister, in her wisdom, has prepared. This is probably the finest bill to do with broadcasting that has ever been brought before the house.


An hon. Member:: Don't take that out.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When hon. members of the opposition have finished criticizing the bill it will be even more perfect. I am waiting for the contribution of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who always asks intelligent questions. I am sure that he will help to improve the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member's speech is getting better.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am about to sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, no.


William Heward Grafftey: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't do that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Fine. When any speaker arouses the opposition, and particularly when he arouses the old gang that has always been there and that has been sitting there for too long, he may feel that he is playing his correct role.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We shall be on the other side soon. We shall move over there.


William Heward Grafftey: We could not agree more, Bryce. Get back to the bill.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that apparently there is no consensus among opposition members on the broadcasting bill. Some of them say: "Abolish the C.B.C. Some of them say: Strengthen the C.B.C. Some say that the minister ought to resign; others, like the hon. member for Athabasca, suggest that she is doing a marvellous job, and of course the common man on the street shares that opinion.
I suggest to hon. members of the opposition that the amendment they have introduced will destroy the bill. They ought to show a more responsible attitude. If something is wrong with the C.B.C., then that something will be corrected once the bill is passed. The legislation will give the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation some direction. Members of the opposition is supporting irresponsible amendments such as the ones brought forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent are not displaying a responsible attitude.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish to ask the eloquent member this. Is he not aware, when condemning this type of amendment, that it was couched in exactly the same words that were used by Mr. Pickersgill, when he was in the house, in 1965? I believe he drafted the words and the amendment was moved by our present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcll-raith). That was in 1965. I took the words of the present amendment from the previous amendment that had been moved at that
November 7, 1967

time. That amendment did not kill the transport bill, but it referred the matter to the committee.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I knew the wording was copied; there is not that much originality on the opposition side. I can almost read the mind of the former minister of transport in the wording of the amendment. By moving the amendment the opposition shows that it does not wish Bill C-163 to pass.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They do not want it to pass because it is the best broadcasting bill that has been brought before the house since the C.B.C. was formed.


William Heward Grafftey: Really?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But these are facts of life. The debate has centered not on the bill but on the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In your speech, you mean.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Perhaps hon. members of the opposition have not read the bill. Perhaps they will study it when it is before the committee. I thought: When it gets to the committee stage at least we shall have the benefit of their views. But they don't want it to get to the committee stage; they want to kill it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member from the apple district says "Oh". That is his finest contribution to the debate for some time. I doubt very much whether he knows there is an amendment before the house.
Since I am non-partisan, Mr. Speaker, and this puts me at a disadvantage, I will only say this to hon. members opposite: If they are to reflect their new look and the attitudes determined upon in their daily caucus meetings, they will need to do more than simply participate in debate; they will have to do their homework as well as to learn to keep quiet when somebody else is speaking. I believe they are the same old gang-they have been around for a long time and we are destined to hear their irresponsible statements for many more years.
In my opinion we have a good bill here, and the opposition could best show its new look and reflect the wave of optimism which permeates it at the moment by leaving personalities to one side and giving the bill a clear passage.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: have waited until now, Mr. Speaker, before entering this debate on the proposed new broadcasting legislation, because I have been trying to decide according to my own conscience what it is that I really want to say. It has been no easy assignment and I am not sure even now that I have all my thoughts straight. The job has been complicated by the fact that we are not confronted simply, as we had expected, with a bill pertaining to broadcasting; we are not challenged simply to debate upon, and deliberate upon, a legislative proposal.
Study of legislation as wide reaching and important as this, having to do with the reform and overhaul of a field as vital as broadcasting, would tax the energies of members of parliament at any time. It would constitute a heavy challenge in itself, given the happiest of circumstances. How much more difficult is the challenge this week, in a set of circumstances which are anything but happy.
I refer to the controversy currently boiling in connection with the remarks made a few days ago about the state of management within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These remarks were by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), the minister responsible for the bill currently before us, and the minister through whom the C.B.C. reports to parliament and the Canadian people.
The controversy which has arisen over those remarks seems now to have overshadowed the bill itself in its legislative aspects. It is already affecting the attitudes and positions of a great many members of this chamber-perhaps the majority of them-and I believe it has coloured their approach both to the basic problems afflicting broadcasting in this country and to the proposed solutions offered in the bill before us.
In my opinion this is extremely unfortunate for parliament, for all those thousands of people in Canada who are engaged in the broadcasting industry as a means of livelihood and for all those millions of Canadians who enjoy the habit of watching their television sets and listening to their radios.
For some years now, broadcasters, viewers and listeners in every comer of Canada have been waiting with the keenest of interest for new broadcasting legislation which would make the industry better fitted to inform, unite and entertain Canadians in the 20th century. Now that it is here, at least in proposal form, and ready for the scrutiny of
4010	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting parliament, we should not allow ourselves to become sidetracked and preoccupied by what is really a peripheral and incidental issue.
It is because of this ruptured approach to the legislation that I suggest it is difficult to know how best to contribute to the broadcasting debate-or even whether it is sensible to contribute to the debate at all. I have been pondering this question since the debate began last week. My difficulties are compounded by the fact that my views are not the same as those of many of my hon. friends on the Conservative benches. Generally speaking, I know the course of wisdom dictates that differences of view within a party should be reconciled in private and left unspoken in this chamber. But none of us in this house, in my opinion, are slaves to this convention. My own experience in the last two years has been that hon. members consider the institution of parliament and the business of the country to rank before party niceties-and so they should. It seems to me this is the way the majority of Canadians feel about it, too, and it is certainly in the best interest of Canadians to adhere to this philosophy. In any event, because of the nature of my remarks, and in the climate of controversy generated around the minister in the last few days I do not think it would be conscionable of me to settle my difference of opinion in private. In any case I feel it would accomplish nothing, and although it pains me to differ from some of my hon. friends I feel conscience bound to do so.
As I said earlier, I believe it is a great misfortune for the Canadian public at large that we should perhaps be allowing ourselves to become unduly influenced in our approach to highly important and long awaited public business by a peripheral and incidental matter, this matter being the controversy in which the minister has found herself embroiled. I do not think the hon. lady needs any help from me, but I may say I find it extremely difficult to share the sense of outrage which some members of this chamber obviously feel over her recent and celebrated remarks. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that some of us are guilty of insupportable ambivalence if we try to stone her to death for saying what she said. It appears to me the hon. lady was saying no more and no less than many of us have often said on this side of the house about the C.B.C., though perhaps she used different words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	November 7, 1967


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: In the controversy which has arisen, it seems to me the Secretary of State has been done an injustice. Her choice of words may not have been perfect. Perhaps she should have chosen some adjective other than "rotten". Perhaps in view of the fact that a long awaited bill was coming before this chamber she should not have chosen that particular week to make the statement she did. But acknowledging this human indiscretion it appears to me patently unjust to seek to suggest that the minister's remarks were any stronger than they really were. There was nothing bombastic about the statement she made, nothing declamatory; she did not say, as some of her critics have implied, that C.B.C. management as an entity was rotten. It was not a carte blanche indictment or, in this case, a carte noire indictment. She said in the course of a lively and entertaining television interview that she thought there was some rotten management in the C.B.C., and in saying this I suspect she was speaking for many members of this party and for a great many Canadians. It is unjust to accuse her of having said more than that.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What is more, I submit it is potentially dangerous to hound and pillory a minister for speaking out forthrightly and frankly, and for calling the shots as she or he sees them. If we persist in this kind of exercise in persecution we may come to the point where we cannot get any minister of the crown in future to answer anything. We shall moralize ourselves in our puritanical impotence right out of real life and into antiseptic neutralism.
I think perhaps the minister made a mistake. It is quite possible that if she had to do it over again she would do it differently, or perhaps not at all. But certainly one of the least attractive aspects of parliamentary life is the sometimes urge to parliamentary lynchings, the tendency of the crowd to pounce with howls of delight upon the unfortunate, on the government benches or other benches, who has the shortsightedness and the temerity to make a mistake and then is repudiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), or the leader of his or her party.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State said nothing that thousands of concerned Canadians have not said long ago, many of them in high public office. Of course there is some bad management in the C.B.C. If there were not, there would not have been two royal commissions investigating it in recent years; if there were not, there would not have been a dispute over the appearance on the C.B.C.
November 7, 1967

of Adolph von Thadden; if there were not, there would not have been a dispute over the appearance of George Lincoln Rockwell; if there were not, there would not have been any dispute over the downgrading of newscaster Earl Cameron; if there were not, there would not have been any dispute over the program "This Hour Has Seven Days"; and if there were not, there would not be any Bill C-163 before us in this chamber now.
Of course there is some bad management in the C.B.C. That is what this exercise in broadcasting legislation is all about. Anyone who has watched the proliferation of C.B.C. employees, anyone who has watched the C.B.C.'s annual budget spiral up to $143 million this year, anyone who has taken the trouble to compare the methods by which a private broadcaster covers an event with the methods employed by the C.B.C., knows, Mr. Speaker-he knows-that there is some bad management in the C.B.C.
The culprit in this case is not the Secretary of State. It is not even the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, who has one of the most difficult and thankless jobs in this country. Remember Mr. Ouimet in May of 1966 during the "Seven Days" dispute, when management's right to manage was being challenged by a group of producers, including one who has since announced his intention of becoming the first N.D.P. prime minister of Canada.
Some in this chamber who were much opposed to Mr. Ouimet in those stormy days, much in opposition to the management of the C.B.C. and in favour of the position of the producers of "Seven Days", seem now to be embracing the management people, in outrage at the remarks of the Secretary of State -a rather sharp shift in position, there, in the space of 18 months. All I would say on this point, sir, is: Where were they when management needed them?
Mr. Speaker, the culprit in this whole broadcasting crisis is not the Secretary of State, not the president of the C.B.C., but the Prime Minister of this country. He has dallied for four years with the monolith of C.B.C. problems. He has substituted wishful thinking for action. He has created Mr. Oui-met's problems for him by acquiescing in a process that year after year has squeezed control of the C.B.C. out of the president's office and diffused it among a vast army of subordinates.
The Prime Minister has constructed the Secretary of State's problem for her, by idling and fiddling, where the C.B.C. was

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting concerned, throughout the minister's stewardship in her present office. And for the finishing touch, he has repudiated her in her present difficulties by trying to suggest, in effect, that she is wrong. That's some record, Mr. Speaker.
Further, this takes no account of the frustrating and demoralizing effect on C.B.C. staffers themselves of the Prime Minister's indecisiveness. This concept in itself staggers the imagination. Imagine the position of hard working C.B.C. staffers, and there are indeed many of them, who are operating in that wasteland, in that vacuum, with no direction, no mandate, no leadership, and no stewardship worthy of the name because of the indecision of the chief legislative executive officer of this country. So the culprit in the present situation I suggest is the Prime Minister, and there is no honesty and no legitimacy in looking any further.
As to the state of broadcasting in Canada, and Bill C-163, I intend, Mr. Speaker, to reserve many of my remarks for the committee stage. But I do want to say one or two things about the present climate surrounding the situation here in the house in which we are examining this bill. There are also one or two things I wish to say about the state of broadcasting, in the few moments remaining to me on the clock at this point.
I think the C.B.C. does some very good things. Of the 265 members in the House of Commons I am among those who have been critical of the C.B.C., outspokenly critical. However I do not speak my criticism from the preferred position or the vested interest of a person who was once connected with the private broadcasting industry. I mean that sincerely, Mr. Speaker. My approach to the C.B.C., to the things it is doing, to the things it is trying to do, and to the things it fails to do is predicated purely on my love of Canada and my patriotism such as it is,-and I hope it is strong-for my country.
My partial background as a private broadcaster has nothing to do with the opinions, attitudes and positions I bring to focus on the C.B.C. in its day to day operations in this country. I hold no brief for the private broadcasters. I think private broadcasters in this country by and large-I should mention that here I speak mainly of television rather than radio-have been badly and sorely derelict in their duties to Canadian society as a whole. In most instances in which I am familiar with their operations I think they have tended to put pure business ambitions ahead of the responsibility that surely they
November 7, 1967

encourage the development of native Canadian creative performing talent. I believe that broadcasters, both public and private, tend to take the line of least resistance in all too many instances where the use of creative Canadian talent is concerned in respect of their programming. There is not enough interest in or emphasis on the development of and use of Canadian talent. I found many things in the ACTRA brief which I consider to be overstated. I even found some which I believe are partially incorrect. But in essence I agree with the appeal which is contained in the brief for a more strict and conscionable attention to the development of Canadian talent. The one medium in this country which is admirably equipped to stimulate our native creative talent and provide a showcase, a forum and a livelihood for our native Canadian performers is our broadcasting system. It does very little in this regard. I suggest that the new legislation is neither clear enough nor strong enough on that subject.
I am also somewhat dismayed by the prescription in the bill for a fine of $100,000 for certain violations of the provisions contained therein. I think that in some instances this would be a very onerous penalty, which possibly could result in the financial ruin of offending stations. I would submit that some attention could be given to the creation of a scale of fines which would provide for a less onerous burden than an arbitrary and mandatory penalty of that magnitude. In her remarks the minister implied that the wealthier a station is, the more Canadian programming will be required under the new legislation. Also implicit in that suggestion of course is the converse; that is, the poorer a station is, the less Canadian programming it will be required to do. I think this raises a question which is fraught with potential dangers for the industry and the public at large.
I ask, sir, in this connection: Who will determine whether such and such a station is wealthy enough to be required to maintain a certain degree of Canadian programming; who will determine whether some other station is not wealthy enough, or is poor enough to be allowed to get by with a minimum of Canadian programming and coast along on imported programming which does not carry with it the cost of the actual production operation?
I believe this establishes what may prove to be a very dangerous type of watchdog operation. This is something which should be examined by the committee very carefully in respect of all its ramifications when the bill 27053-254i


An hon. Member:: What about Mr. Stanfield?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I think we have a more challenging assignment for him.


An hon. Member:: He is going to do a bigger job than that one.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I could cite dozens of examples, as could anybody in this chamber, of tough, top, able, capable, energetic management people in private industry in this country who, I think in a great many cases in any event, would thrill to the challenge of taking over the C.B.C. and putting it back on the rails. I wonder if any of them has ever been approached. I am not so presumptuous as to suggest that among those I have mentioned there is a candidate who would be interested, but I have mentioned only six or seven. There are 600 or 700 executive men of that calibre in private industry in this country, and what could be more exciting than the challenge of taking over this national public broadcasting system at the going salary, and putting it back on its feet? I think if an approach were made to some of these people, some of these qualified capable leaders in Canadian business and in the Canadian economy, the Prime Minister could soon find the answer to his quest.
My strongest recommendation at this stage of deliberation would take the form of a suggestion to the Prime Minister to snap out of his inaction and fill those posts at the top of the corporation, so the minister and everybody else responsible and interested can get busy building the C.B.C. and the broadcasting system in this country in the Canadian manner we all want it to take. I suggest that he launch that quest tomorrow, not on the campuses of this country but in the boardrooms. He should look for someone in the age
November 7, 1967

group of 40 to 48 who has demonstrated in the business world that he knows how to handle people, how to manage a balance sheet and how to get the greatest value and use for the clientele and the staff from the money at the corporation's disposal. This more than anything else is what the C.B.C. needs today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals
attacking the C.B.C., and at least one of them wanting to pack it up-


An hon. Member:: Two, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has a seconder now.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
And with my Progressive Conservative friends from Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) and Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) coming to the defence of the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh), this debate is getting a bit mixed up.


An hon. Member:: You are mixed up all the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, this debate has wandered considerably from the course it took when the bill was first introduced last Wednesday. On that day, and for a short while thereafter, the house discussed the general principles of broadcasting and the general policy proposed in the legislation. It looked as though the debate might not last long and that we might get the bill to the committee at an early date.
This afternoon the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), and tonight the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) echoed his sentiments, urged that we get this part of the debate over and get the bill to committee so it can be studied in its various details. I agree with this suggestion, but I would point out that if the debate had not been muddied by certain statements, made initially outside the house by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), it probably would have been over by last Friday. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have had moved today an amendment presented by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) and it becomes necessary for the various groups in this house to indicate where they stand with respect to the amendment.
I want to make it clear that the members of this party will not support the amendment. We feel, rather, that it should be rejected and that the bill itself should be sent to the committee at the earliest possible moment. My hon. friends in the Progressive
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Conservative party, joined of course by many Liberals, have been attacking the C.B.C., today in particular, almost without mercy. But I suggest that merely because one can find fault with the C.B.C.-and all of us can do that-is no reason to pack it up. There are faults that can be pointed out in the institution of parliament. Parliament has always had its faults, and so long as they send human beings to it, it probably always will. But that is no reason for throwing out the institution of parliament itself.
I believe it is a dangerous suggestion that is being made, namely that the answer to the problems of the C.B.C. is to abolish it altogether, to sell it to private enterprise or for us to get out of this field in so far as public activity is concerned.
The proposal to deny the bill second reading at this point and to send merely its subject matter to committee would have a negative effect which we cannot accept. I may say, on the other hand, that it has no positive value that seems worth anything at all. The negative side of this amendment is that, to say the least, it delays consideration of the bill. To say the most, it kills the bill at this stage, probably for this session. All that would be referred to the committee would be its subject matter. There would be no bill, it having been denied second reading.
To do that would be to negate the proposed broadcasting policy which is set out in the bill, and in its general lines we support that policy. Therefore we cannot vote for an amendment that would negate that policy. To negate this bill by denying it second reading would also have the effect of supporting the proposition that there should not be a C.B.C., because the bill re-incorporates the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That, too, is a proposition that we cannot support. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we shall register our vote against an amendment which would have these negative and deleterious effects.
The argument has been advanced that because of the statements made last week by the Secretary of State, and the amendments and additions she has made to those statements since that time, there needs to be a committee discussion not only of the bill that is before us but of broadcasting policy and broadcasting practice in this country.
We agree that the need for this has been brought on, but there is no discussion that could be had by reference of the subject matter to the committee that cannot be had by the reference of the bill itself. The bill includes in it clauses that lay down general
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting broadcasting policy, clauses that continue a regulatory body although under a different name, and clauses that continue the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Everything that might be discussed under the heading of subject matter can be discussed by the reference of the bill itself, and we think that is what should be done.
It seems to me that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent does reflect a good many of the speeches that have been made today, such as the speech of the hon. member who moved the motion, the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the speech of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the speech, in large part, of the hon. member for Athabasca, even though he did come to the defence of the Secretary of State.
But it is precisely because the amendment does reflect the feeling that we should pull away from public broadcasting, that we should pull away from a public broadcasting corporation, that we feel it is not to be supported by those who have the best interests of this country at heart. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes for the vote on the amendment to the motion, we shall vote against it; and we shall vote for the second reading of the bill, welcoming of course the fact that the bill, after it has been given second reading, will be sent to the committee for thorough study.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member will recall very well that in 1965, when we had a transportation bill before the house, the government side moved that the subject matter of that bill be referred to committee for study prior to second reading. The bill was subsequently redrawn and a much better bill was presented last year. Could that not happen with this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my hon. friend and neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that there are some very distinct differences between the situation then and the situation now.


Mr. Lambert:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wants to know why. Naturally, I am about to explain the differences. In the case of the transportation bill

the government had come to the realization that it was not going to get it through that session, and the government itself was willing for the subject matter to be studied by the committee of the house. When the reference of the subject matter was made, and it was made unanimously, it was with the clear understanding and realization that this was the end of the bill for that session. This was a case where there had not been, in recent years at any rate, a committee study of transportation and it was desirable to have that study before the legislation was proceeded with. This was agreed to on all sides of the house. The result was of course that no legislation was passed that session but another bill had to be brought in at a subsequent session.
In the present case the whole question of broadcasting policy has already been before the committee. It got to the committee because of the "Seven Days" trouble and a few other things like that. But there has been that study, a study of the white paper, and a report from the committee recommending the general lines of broadcasting policy. This bill, therefore, is in a sense the government's answer to the consideration the committee has given to the subject matter, just as the second transportation bill was the government's answer to the study that was given to the subject matter of the first bill. Therefore I do not think the cases are parallel.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I might go one step further and say that if the course followed with respect to the transportation bill were repeated, the result would probably be the same and no broadcasting legislation would be passed in this session. If there is one thing on which we are surely agreed in the house, it is that we do not want this mess to continue ad infinitum. The time to get legislation passed with respect to broadcasting and the time to establish a regulatory body and a re-organized C.B.C. is now, not in the next session. I suggest to my friend and neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that he has actually supported the case against the amendment, by helping me to point out that it would have this delaying effect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why does the hon. member think that if the bill is passed in this session anything will be done? The Prime Minister has taken well over a year to consider the resignation and to fill the position of the head of the C.B.C. and he has done
November 7, 1967

nothing about it. What makes the hon. member think the Prime Minister will be much more active next month than he has been the whole of the past year?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That question is of course more difficult to answer, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre realizes, but let me point out to him that if the bill is not passed, then of course there is no chance of the Prime Minister doing anything. But if the bill is passed, at least it will be possible for him to act, and we would be able to goad him into action on this matter.
A good deal of the time of the debate today has been spent in attacking the C.B.C. I am prepared to admit with anyone else that the C.B.C. makes mistakes. I will assert that there are improvements in its programming and its organization that ought to be made. I am only echoing what is contained in the various reports that have been made as a result of the inquiries and the investigations that have taken place. But I suggest, even at the risk of being a small minority voice going against the stream in this chamber today, that the C.B.C. is not all that bad, and that we would be making a mistake, as I said earlier, if because of its errors and because of the things we see wrong with it, we were to destroy the institution instead of trying to reform it. That is what most of those who have spoken today offer as a solution to the problem.
I would point out to my hon. friends that we are living in the 1960's, not in the nineteenth century. There are problems facing Canadians who are alive today. Some of these problems are very real and agonizing, particularly those in the field of religious and philosophical thinking, in the field of economics, and in the whole area of the mores of our society, and the judgments that have to be made. I would suggest that in the 1960's in Canada there is one problem to which we cannot close our eyes, that is the problem of national unity which breaks down into its details, difficult though they may be, of French speaking and English speaking relationships. There are problems in the international field and in the field of race relations in the United States and in other parts of the world. I contend that any body, particularly in a field such as broadcasting, which is going to be serving the people who pay for that institution should be stimulating our thoughts and should be giving us things to think about in respect of these areas. It is no use saying that, because
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the C.B.C. goes into some of the problems related to the mores of our society, it is peddling filth or pornography, and that sort of thing. I can make the obvious retort to some of the charges that have been made, but the point I want to make is that the C.B.C., in spite of all the mistakes it has made, has been trying to cope with the problems of the human beings who are alive in 1967, and I am glad it does not pay too much attention to these voices that want to take it back into the last century.
If I had my way I would go further than this bill does so far as the C.B.C. policy is concerned. I would go more in the direction that is followed in the United Kingdom. I would say, let us set up responsible boards and a responsible management and let us pick the best people we can possibly find for the job. I may not concur in the nominations made by my friend from Winnipeg South, (Mr. Sherman).


An hon. Member:: I hope not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say "hear hear" to my friend who says he hopes not. I will not make my own nomination because I do not want to hurt anybody's chances, but having picked a board and having picked a management we should then give them the job. We should lay down policy, as this bill seeks to do, but then we should not interfere in the day to day operations of that body which will run the C.B.C. for us. If it lets us down, if it goes contrary to the policies that we lay down, that we think, in the name of the people of Canada, should be followed, our job is to fire them-not to carry on this business of interfering on a day to day or week to week basis of which we have had far too much in the House of Commons.
Even after all the criticisms of the C.B.C. have been made, it seems to me that on balance it has to be admitted that it has been one of the very good influences in Canadian life. It has helped to develop the consciousness of our Canadian identity. Its coverage of national events of all kinds has been outstanding. I think it has done a good deal toward Canadian unity, and I suggest we can be proud of what this organization has done.
I say again that I hope the new management will listen more to some of its creative people and will listen more to some of the suggestions that have been made. I think improvements can be made in its financial management.
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
But these criticisms have been made by others. My point is that I think something should be said on the other side. With respect to the whole question of finances I thought there was one interesting point that was brought up this afternoon which exemplies the misinformation we often get. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) made the comparison, as other hon. members have done, between what the C.B.C. spent and what the C.T.V. spent on giving the nation the story of the Tory convention in Toronto last September. A number of figures were given. I think the figure for the C.B.C. cost has been pretty well established at $46,000. I have heard figures for the C.T.V. cost varying all the way from $12,000 to $43,000. I do not know just how we get the exact figure from the private people, the way we can get it from the public body, but I would point out that C.T.V. operated one network only, an English speaking T.V. network. The costs of the C.B.C. covered an English speaking television network, a French speaking television network, an English speaking radio network and a French speaking radio network. When one compares what was done over four networks with what was done over one network, he realizes there is room for considerable difference in the cost, and on that basis probably the C.B.C.'s cost was not as uneconomic as some people have tried to make it.


Mr. Deachman:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he recall that in that broadcast when people spoke in French during the convention the C.B.C. could not even find somebody to interpret? Does he remember that incident?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was following the English network at that time and I cannot say what might have happened on the other network.


Grant Deachman: That was on the English network.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words my hon. friend is complaining because on the English network French speeches were not given in English? He and I can go back to St. Jean next summer and thrash this out.
I know that these comparisons between private and public broadcasting can be made according to one's background, one's emotional reactions or one's prejudice, if you want to call it that. But it is certainly my view that had the public broadcasting in this

country not provided a stimulus the private people would not have done as good a job as some hon. members say they have done, and I think it is interesting to note that even in the United States, that great citadel of private enterprise, they are now considering the need of having a public broadcasting network.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I thought this debate could have been ended by last Friday, and certainly by Monday at the latest, if we had stayed with the discussion of broadcasting principles and broadcasting policies which are involved in the bill. However, I suggested that we got away from that because the waters were muddied by the statements made, first outside of this house but later right here, by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). I want to express my very real regret that she made the statement that she did about the so-called rotten management in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In particular, I echo the views that have been expressed by my leader and deputy leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), about the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of the government in this regard. If she or the government knew in the past, or lately have become aware, that things are as bad as she makes out, they have a responsibility to do something about it rather than indulge in these general smears, on television or in the House of Commons.
I want to say that I think this is a most unfair way in which to treat Mr. Ouimet, the retiring president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He needs no defence from me. He has been recognized as a man of brilliance and of courage. He himself has recognized that, perchance, he made some mistakes in the operation of his office. He brought that recognition to the fore by offering his resignation to the Prime Minister of this country about 13 months ago. Why is Mr. Ouimet still president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? He is still president because the Prime Minister asked him to continue until this legislation was passed, until a new president could be appointed. In other words, Mr. Ouimet's resignation is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. Mr. Ouimet is carrying on only because he has been asked to do so. I submit it is not cricket in that situation to be kicking this man around
November 7, 1967

by the kind of charges the Secretary of State has been making.
She may say that her charge is general, that it is rotten management, in general terms, she is alleging. Surely the person who has to take responsibility for things that are wrong must be the man at the top. I think it is unfair to Mr. Ouimet who has given service to the country, and I think it is unfair to the country and unfair to parliament that we have had this discussion on one of the most important matters facing society today confused by this conflict. The whole question of radio and television and the broader question of communications are terribly important. One does not need to be able to understand Marshall McLuhan to realize that the way we communicate with each other is changing our whole way of life is perhaps changing us in the process.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does anybody understand McLuhan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said it is not necessary to understand him in order to realize that our ways of communicating with each other are changing us into a different kind of people. It is a fact that we see things on television instead of having to read about them line by line in print. We are there when war takes place, when there is a revolution and when there are riots We can go to Expo and see these displays in which there are three or four or half a dozen film portrayals going on at the same time. This is doing something to us; it is changing us. This whole medium of television, as I say, is not merely something new that has come along, that we handle the same way our grandfathers handled the printed page. This is one of the most important factors in our life today.
What we needed in a discussion of this bill was a discussion of these basic matters. What we should have in the committee to which the bill is referred is a discussion of the whole principle and philosophy of broadcasting. I regret very much it has been muddied by this kind of discussion. Personally, I think something should be done about it. I do not expect the Prime Minister to do what he could do in this situation. This being the case, I hope we will get over this muddiness as quickly as possible, and that we will defeat this amendment which would delay the decision on broadcasting policy until next session, a fate worse than death for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends are booing, or whatever those noises were at this suggestion, so I ask them if they think it would be good for the country to have this present broadcasting uncertainty continue until 1968?


Mr. Nowlan:: A fate worse than death; that is what you said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, perhaps that
phrase was a bit too colourful.


An hon. Member:: Just like the Secretary of State.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, perhaps I should follow the example of the Secretary of State and say it would be a rotten mess to carry this situation over into 1968.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This sentence has got mixed up with all these interruptions. I started out to say that in the light of this situation I believe we should defeat this delaying amendment and get the bill to the committee, so the members of that committee can deal with this very important subject.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members in this house I was delighted when the minister announced that after second reading this bill would be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting for very careful, detailed review. I think it should go to that committee as soon as possible, and for that reason I propose to vote against the amendment now before the house.
This bill, of course, is of the utmost importance. It affects all Canadians. I believe most Canadians feel that there are many things about Canadian broadcasting which must be improved. Their concern extends both to the stations operated by private business and to stations operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One of the aspects of public broadcasting, Mr. Speaker, which is causing concern to many Canadians today is the very large expense for the Canadian public broadcasting service. The C.B.C., of course, does obtain some revenue from commercial advertising, but its costs far exceed those revenues. Accordingly, during the last five years the taxpayers of Canada were called upon to pay very large amounts to the C.B.C.
I have studied the financial statements of the C.B.C. They are rather complicated, but I
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting believe my figures are approximately correct. These statistics indicate that the C.B.C.'s financial year ends on March 31, and that for the financial year ending March 31, 1964, the Canadian taxpayers were forced to pay C.B.C. operating costs amounting to $78.4 million and capital costs amounting to $7.3 million, for a total of $85.7 million. In 1965 the operating deficit of the C.B.C. amounted to $85.8 million, while capital costs amounted to $14.2 million, for a total cost of $100 million. This $14.2 million was in the form of a loan, but it was never paid back. So in effect it was another grant from public revenues. In 1966, the operating deficit of the C.B.C. amounted to $94.3 million, and capital costs were $12.5 million, making a total of $106.8 million. In 1967, operating deficits amounted to $112.4 million, while capital costs were $29 million for a total of $141.4 million.
The question in my mind is simply this: Are the Canadian people getting full value for these tax dollars? If not, will the present bill deal adequately with the problem?
If I may turn for a moment to the private stations in Canada, it appears that they constitute a system of about the same size as the C.B.C. In the early years some of these stations were unprofitable. However, in recent years private business has been able to operate both radio and television stations at a profit. Accordingly, instead of being subsidized by the taxpayers, they have contributed a substantial amount to the public treasury through taxes on their profits.
During the entire history of radio and television broadcasting in Canada, one of the most difficult, controversial and time consuming jobs of the public regulating authority has been the issuing of licences to private stations. At times there has been great competition for these licences, perhaps stimulated by the well known remark that a broadcasting licence is a licence to print money, unless it is issued to the C.B.C. I am not sure that this statement is true, but it may be true to some extent.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Accordingly, I hope that the Secretary of State will, during the course of discussion in committee, consider an amendment which will require broadcasting licences, and licences which are to be renewed, to be issued on the basis of public tender. If the owner of a private station bids too low and fails to renew his licence, the physical assets of his station would be transferred to the

successful bidder at fair book value, determined in accordance with the regulations of the broadcasting commission. This system would remove all suspicion of favouritism and would provide the government with revenue. I hope the minister is sympathetic to the suggestion.
Turning for a moment to the C.B.C., because the corporation forms almost half our broadcasting system we cannot make any sensible decisions with regard to broadcasting legislation until we make some basic decisions with regard to the functions and physical structure of the C.B.C.
The Fowler committee made this fundamental point very clearly when it said at page 81 of its report:
It is extremely important that government policy should clearly determine the physical structure of the C.B.C. system for at least the next five years. This is an essential first step. Upon this decision a great many others depend.
The present physical structure of the C.B.C. has developed over a long period of time and now needs very careful re-examination. When the C.B.C. was formed many years ago for radio broadcasting, means of communication were primitive by present day standards. Great stretches of the country were not equipped with broadcasting facilities. The large amounts of capital required were not readily available. The government owned network financed by Canadian taxpayers was the only practical way of bringing news, entertainment and cultural programs to many parts of our country.
In response to this need the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was formed and gradually acquired stations and physical facilities, until in 1965 the facilities owned by the C.B.C. included 16 television stations with 28 relays, 31 AM stations with 129 relays, and 5 FM radio stations. In addition, of course, it had arrangements for its programs to be carried by its affiliated stations throughout the country.
In recent years conditions have changed radically; the heavily populated parts of Canada are all served by numerous privately owned radio and T.V. stations and most Canadians are subject to an almost overwhelming bombardment of light entertainment, news, public affairs, and cultural programs from many different sources. Nevertheless, despite these radical changes, the
November 7, 1967

C.B.C. has continued to insist that it must increase the number of its stations and extend and expand its physical facilities at the cost of the taxpayers. This is referred to in the Fowler report at page 78:
The current C.B.C. five year forecast of capital and operating requirements includes provision for a very substantial extension of coverage that does not commend itself to us.
The committee then quotes from a document entitled "General Coverage Policy- October, 1964" which reads as follows:
In television, in AM radio and in FM radio, the long range goal of the corporation as the national service has been to eventually provide all Canadians with C.B.C. program services in full.
It then outlines the necessity for additional facilities and says:
A less tangible but most important factor is the need for a C.B.C. "presence" in all parts of the country.
The document concludes with these words:
Consequently, in the light of the three foregoing factors:
(1)	the need to bring the complete C.B.C. service to all Canadians,
(2)	the desire of the public for truly alternative service, and
(3)	the need for a C.B.C. "presence" across the country as an essential factor in developing Canadian unity,
the C.B.C. believes it is in the best public interest to follow a policy under which its program services will ultimately be broadcast in full and to all Canadians through C.B.C.-owned facilities.
If this policy were carried out it would involve an extensive expansion of existing C.B.C. facilities at great expense to the Canadian treasury. That is the policy which did not commend itself to the Fowler committee. That committee had this to say in that regard:
To ensure satisfactory distribution of the national service some minor changes in the arrangements with the affiliates may be necessary. But there is no valid reason for further expansion of C.B.C. production and transmission facilities. Any additional public money provided to the C.B.C. would be much better spent on improvement of its programming.
The ACTRA brief which most members of parliament received recently made the same points, with the additional suggestion that the money should be spent on Canadian rather then United States programming.
This raises a very fundamental question. Under present conditions is it necessary for the C.B.C. to own and operate its stations and physical facilities? Would it not be more
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting efficient if licences for all stations were allotted by public tender and if there were reserved for the C.B.C. generous amounts of time on all the Canadian stations for it to present its programs. Broadcasting time should be so arranged that worth-while national broadcasts can be adequately presented in a proper and adequate manner across the nation. Time reservations could be arranged so that people in practically all populated areas would have a choice. They could watch either the national broadcasting service provided by the C.B.C. or private programs.


Mr. Cowan:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: The Fowler committee considered this suggestion but rejected it. At page 80 of its report, referring to the C.B.C., it says this:
First, it must have a basic number of stations that it owns and operates. To be an effective broadcasting agency, the C.B.C. must have continuing experience in actual broadcasting and maintain direct contact with the viewing and listening public. If the C.B.C. were ever to become a mere producer of programs available for transmission over stations controlled and operated by others, it would lose contact with the needs and tastes of the Canadian people, and its programs would soon lose the character of a vital national service. The C.B.C. now owns 16 television stations and 36 AM and FM radio stations. These, we believe, are quite sufficient to give it experience and direct participation in actual broadcasting.
I have read that statement a number of times. I find it difficult to assess its validity because no reasons are given for it. It seems completely inconsistent with the much quoted sentence with which the report begins:
The only thing that really matters in broadcasting is program content; all the rest is housekeeping.
Did the Fowler committee really mean that, or did it put that sentence in merely as a controversial opening sentence for an interesting report?
If generous amounts of time are reserved on stations throughout the nation so that an appropriate network is required to be provided for the national broadcasting service, why should it be essential that the C.B.C. should have legal title to the stations and physical facilities and actually carry out the housekeeping operations.
Personally, I feel that our firm in Toronto can work satisfactorily and carry on a satisfactory practice without owing the Toronto-Dominion Centre in which we reserve office
November 7, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting space. Had we access to the treasury we might And it desirable to own the building; since we have not, we are willing to go along as we are. Many professional and businessmen are quite satisfied to work in office space that is reserved for them in buildings owned by others. It is not necessary for them to own the buildings in which they work. Housekeeping facilities must be provided efficiently, but they do not need to be operated by the business or professional firms which use them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The same principle surely applies to the C.B.C. All our experience in Canada indicates that housekeeping operations connected with the functioning of broadcasting stations could be provided much more efficiently and economically by private operators rather than by organizations such as the C.B.C. which rely on subsidies from the public treasury.
The Fowler report gives many examples of the inefficiency of the C.B.C. when carrying out these housekeeping operations. Referring to the proposed new C.B.C. building in Montreal, the report says at page 205:
Work measurement tests indicate that for both administrative and operational or production processes there is a need for the development and implementation of precise standards, from which one could reasonably anticipate staff savings of up to 20 per cent of the present totals in these classes of employment. C.B.C. management does not agree with this estimate. However, obstinate disbelief in the validity of work measurement techniques is an anachronism today; we must therefore assume that future growth could be modified by savings from increased efficiency in the future, and it could well be that the planned staff increase in Montreal need not be anticipated in the building program.
Speaking of the proposed new buildings both in Montreal and Toronto, the report said, at page 209:
We must emphasize that our analysis clearly confirms the need for immediate relief, both in Montreal and Toronto. We are equally sure that existing C.B.C. plans for rectifying this situation are not well founded. In our view, they take insufficient account of new and prospective developments and trends, both in programming and electronics, and are consequently too extravagant and inflexible. We are satisfied that they should be reviewed ab initio, and redesigned in accordance with the principles we have advanced above.
At page 263, in the same vein, the Fowler report has this to say, speaking of the changes which might come about as the result of the possible use of satellites, laser

beams and other technological improvements in communications:
For broadcasting policy, the bearings are obvious. In developing the Canadian national broadcasting system, great care must be taken not to hinder tomorrow's advance by vast investments in facilities and equipment that belong to yesterday's technology. There must be elbow room to take advantage of each scientific discovery as it becomes available for practical purposes. New and better ways of producing and transmitting broadcast programs must not be baulked by costly but outdated buildings that will remain only as durable monuments to lack of foresight. We have all seen such monuments in our travels, some of then not far from home.
At page 298, speaking of C.B.C. administration, the report says:
Some 1,500 to 1,600 C.B.C. personnel have clerical and supervisory duties, with annual salaries totalling $7,500,000. The study indicates a potential saving of $900,000 to $1,200,000 or 12 per cent to 16 per cent.
I believe it is a fundamental mistake to assume that these inefficiencies can be changed for long merely by bringing about a change in management. I say this although I very seldom disagree with my hon. friend from Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). The simple fact is, our experience has shown that over a long period of time housekeeping operations of this type are not carried out efficiently by any government, any public corporation or any commission which relies largely upon public subsidies.
The private operation of such facilities has built-in safeguards against operational inefficiency and waste of money, and we should take advantage of this principle. Accordingly when the bill before us goes to committee I hope the minister will be prepared to accept amendments along the lines I have suggested.
To continue to deal with the subject of efficiency, let me draw attention to the fact that the present bill contemplates the head office of the corporation remaining in Ottawa. The Fowler report clearly documented the inefficiency of keeping a large head office staff in Ottawa, remote from the two large operational centres in Toronto and Montreal, and recommended that the head office be removed to one of the operating centres, preferably Montreal.
It is surely entirely clear to all that there is no point whatever in continuing to maintain at great expense a large head office staff at the Ottawa headquarters on Bronson avenue. I suggest that the formal, statutory head office should remain in Ottawa at the office of
November 7, 1967

the Secretary of State, but that no executive staff should be there; the executive headquarters would be removed to Toronto or Montreal. In any event the top executive staff would be obliged to move between those two centres. In this way, very substantial sums of money would be saved and operational efficiency would be increased. No doubt the expensive monument on Bronson avenue could be used by one of the other government departments and large amounts saved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) !or his economy program.
I have suggested that licences for all stations should be granted by public tender to qualified persons, and that adequate time for the national broadcasting service should be reserved to the C.B.C. at such time as licences are issued. It is not necessary for the C.B.C. to own its stations and physical facilities. In addition to the savings which would be effected in the operation of these facilities there would also be substantial savings in program costs.
It is important that there should be available to Canadians a balanced program including news, public affairs, light entertainment and cultural and educational programs, but it is not necessary that the C.B.C. should at the expense of the taxpayers duplicate the light entertainment, the news and the public affairs programs now being provided adequately by private stations in most parts of Canada. Nevertheless, a very large proportion of the present C.B.C. budget is spent in duplicating services already provided without expense to the taxpayer by private broadcasters.
At page 29 of the Fowler report there is an interesting analysis of the programming on the public and private stations in Canada, in English and French. We find that stations owned and operated by the C.B.C. use their television time as follows:
Light entertainment:
English, 52.2 per cent; French, 54.7 per cent Sports and Outdoor Activities;
English, 8.1 per cent; French, 6.4 per cent Information:
English, 37.5 per cent; French, 36.4 per cent Arts, Letters and Sciences;
English, 2.2 per cent; French, 2.5 per cent


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Pennell:: I understand there is only one speaker remaining on the list and I wonder whether the house would be kind enough to permit that one remaining speaker to conclude the debate this evening?
DEBATES	4023
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Michael Starr: I do not know who the speaker is. Would the Solicitor General advise us?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am informed he is the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


Michael Starr: Well, eight Liberals have spoken in this debate; we have had nine speakers, and the other parties, five. We have other speakers who wish to express an opinion on this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question before the house is that this house do now adjourn.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, on October 19 last, I asked the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), if his department anticipated the replacement of the Ocean Limited train which was supposed to be cancelled on October 29 and which has acutally been cancelled since.
I directed the question to the hon. minister at that time because I considered the matter as very urgent. As a matter of fact, the people of my constituency and the whole district are greatly concerned about this situation which is not only getting worse but which has been deteriorating for many years without any remedial action being taken.
A few days before putting this question, I received a copy of the daily editorial of station CJBR, Rimouski. At the very outset of this broadcast appeared these words I wish to quote on the cancellation of this train.
Such is the absolutely staggering news made public by the Canadian National. The inadequate, insufficient and unfair service of which the population has been complaining for years, particularly since the opening of Expo, far from improving, is deteriorating.
And the editorial writer added:
-we can no longer have any doubt that the C.N.R. is discriminating against the population of eastern Quebec.
November 7, 1967
4024	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The editorial writer gave proof, brought out facts to support the opinions he expressed. For instance, he mentioned the problems of seat, berth, and compartment reservations on trains in our area when we want to go to the provincial capital or to Montreal.
He gave this recent example:
Last Monday evening, on Thanksgiving day, the 11.15 p.m. train which had been booked up for a week, according to the Campbellton office, had only 74 passengers out of a 300-seat capacity.
It is things like this which have for years prompted the people in our area to criticize and to feel left out. The announcement that that train was to be cancelled certainly did not soothe or encourage them.
At about the same time, the Progres du golfe on October 26, published an editorial entitled:
In the age of cybernetics, service of another age.
The editorial writer recognizes the qualities of this crown corporation, the Canadian National. She praises its achievements of recent years; she praises also the part played by the Canadian National in the success of our Expo, but in concluding, she raises the same questions and shares the opinion I have already expressed, when she says:
If only there were trains-
She says that because people speak of improvements in transportation, in cybernetics, in electronics, in transportation with powerful diesel engines. But if only there were trains. I continue:
We had so few; we will have fewer still. What can we do, except maintain and even prove by scores of testimonies that C.N. users in the Lower St. Lawrence are the most disadvantaged of all passengers. The time of Expo 67-
That is from the standpoint of transportation.
-was not easy for them but the prospects after Expo (in the field of transportation) do not look much brighter. It is not the C.N.R. which is lagging behind, but its passengers.
I have received since then from the municipal councils of Rimouski, Saint-Fabien and other localities, resolutions which express the same views.
That is why I deemed it advisable to make representations to the new minister who, I believe, will enunciate, through his parliamentary secretary, the position he intends to take so as to meet the demands of the people of that pilot area, about which we have been

hearing throughout the country for some years in the field of railway transportation.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) I should like first of all to say I feel quite confident the reply of the minister would be that no discrimination is intended on the part of the Canadian National Railways in respect of his constituents. I am sure there is no doubt in his mind or in the minds of other members that as winter approaches it is the normal practice of the two national railways to curtail some services. In order that trains will not run empty, this will be even more necessary as a result of the extra services which had been provided for Expo.
I have been informed by the Canadian National Railways, however, that some changes are being made in its train operations between Montreal and the eastern part of Quebec and the maritimes, effective with the change of time on October 29. The "Ocean" and "Cabot" are being combined. In order not to remove the service from Ed-mundston and Monk and in order to transfer the over-all pattern of service this combined train will operate over the N.T.R. route through New Brunswick. The "Scotian", the "Chaleur" and the railiner service between Campbellton and Charny, connecting with the Rapido service between Montreal and Quebec, will continue to serve the Rimouski area.



INDUSTRY-GEORGIAN BAY-CONSIDERATION UNDER DESIGNATED AREA PROGRAM

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1967, as reported at page 3741 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) this question:
In view of the fact that the removal of the southern Georgian Bay region from the list of designated areas discriminates against the Owen Sound area, which now has close to 2,100 men and women seeking employment there, will he give consideration to restoring this region to the list of designated areas or to making special provision for the Owen Sound employment area?
The minister did not answer. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record the reason I feel Owen Sound and Meaford have received unjust and shabby treatment from the Minister of Industry.
November 7, 1967

When the designation legislation became effective and the regions were being designated, this government which was well aware of our plight, ignored the fact that the Georgian bay area has been long recognized as a slow growth area with hundreds of unemployed, with hundreds of marginal farms, with thousands of people struggling on inadequate incomes and with a continuing migration of the youth and high school graduates to more prosperous centres. After ignoring these facts the government then selected certain other areas, some of which already were highly industrialized, for designation benefits.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Georgian bay area was actually penalized for two years while the cream of new industry was attracted to areas under designation. Eventually, after many appeals for consideration over a two year period, the Georgian bay area was designated. However, owing to an ill-conceived formula, most of the available industry coming to this area located at the nearest possible point to the potential market to the south, resulting in the large majority of the industry locating in two centres. Out of the 68 industries reported to have received development benefits in the Georgian bay area, Meaford did not get any new industry; Owen Sound got four new industries, and five others received benefits for modernization. However, during this same period three industries closed their doors in Owen Sound.
Owen Sound placed much confidence in two statements made by the minister in his press release of August 5, 1965 at the time of our designation. Let me quote these excerpts as follows:
I am confident that many areas which may have been considered remote for industrial development in the past will offer most attractive opportunities for growth in the future.
The second excerpt is:
The duration of the incentive program is designed to ensure the best possible results in that the benefits will be available to eligible firms which enter production before expiry of the plan, March 31, 1971.
On the strength of these and other assurances given at that time Owen Sound began a program of essential services required by industry that might locate there, at a cost of approximately $1 million. Further evidence of the city's financial involvement is outlined in an editorial which appeared in the Owen
DEBATES	4026
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Sound Sun Times of November 3, 1967. 1 should like to quote from this editorial ai follows:
A great deal of the economy of the district has been built on indications that the assistance would continue for another two years or so. Owen Sound for instance has faced a heavy burden in its very costly water pumping station, whose extent was based on a continuing industrial expansion under the designated area status and the demands such would create. The city has built up a reserve of industrial land based on the same premise. Extensive school expansion programs have been undertaken with a view to the continued growth in population. Multi-unit housing programs are now under way. Other smaller communities in the area have yet to feel the results of the assistance program, Meaford as an instance.
Considering the comparatively small percentage of the benefits received by Owen Sound with over 18,000 population and Meaford with 3,800, one can fully realize it does not balance with the burden Owen Sound will have to bear. Not only will we suffer from the loss of our ability to attract industry, but our winter works program will require that we pay 25 per cent of the cost, while under designation we paid 10 per cent. On Owen Sound's proposed winter works program, amounting to better than $1,250,000, the extra cost to the city will be $187,500. Furthermore, thinking people for quite some time now have been alarmed at the way our most productive land is being sacrificed for industrial sites and subdivision development. In fact, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) mentioned this in a speech he made in Toronto last Saturday, November 4.
Meaford and Owen Sound are strategic locations with an abundance of land unsuitable for agriculture, and ideal municipalities for government assistance to further industrial and population growth. To deprive these centres of assistance when their development was only in the bud was the height of poor judgment. The irony of the whole matter stems from the fact that when the Owen Sound employment area qualified for designation on August 5, 1965, there were 748 people unemployed. On the same date this year we had 1,625 unemployed and we are deprived of designation benefits when the need is most urgent.
I appeal to the minister to use his influence toward restoring assistance to Meaford and Owen Sound for at least another year, so that they might get their feet on more solid ground.
4026	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, having seen representatives from Owen Sound here a little over a week ago, I am afraid the hon. member and myself are operating on rather different figures. As I think you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware, the designated area program is not applied to municipalities, but rather to larger areas known as manpower service centre areas. These larger areas are chosen for designation, so as to give the prospective investor a reasonable range of choice in respect of the location of his prospective new investment.
In this region mention has been made of three manpower service centre areas, namely Midland, Owen Sound and Collingwood. Comparing these three areas, the unemployment ratio, on which basically designation is founded in relation to Canada as a whole with a national average of 100 per cent, for the most recent five years for Collingwood was 141 per cent, for Midland 135.9 per cent and for Owen Sound only 111.5 per cent. This would indicate that Owen Sound is the better off, in terms of unemployment, of the three areas.
The hon. member has mentioned that at the time of de-designation there had been approved, or the three designated areas qualified for grants in respect of some 68 projects, which incidentally represent a new investment of some $105 million. When finally brought to fruition and in production these projects will result in the creation of some 6,500 new jobs. That is for the three areas. My information is that of those 68 projects, 18 will be in Collingwood, 19 will be in Midland and 31 will be in Owen Sound.
In terms of investment value, $32,250,000 will be for Midland, $35 million will be for Collingwood and $38,400,000 will be for Owen Sound. In terms of jobs, these 68 projects will represent 1,500 new jobs for Collingwood, 2,000 new jobs for Midland and 2,876 new jobs for Owen Sound. I would think it is clear, therefore, that while one municipality, Meaford, has had no industrial expansion, the manpower service centre area of Owen Sound, which according to the hon. gentleman has had virtually no expansion, has benefited from substantial industrial expansion. A manpower service centre area is by definition an area which represents a common labour market.
As evidence perhaps of more than local success in relieving unemployment, the hon.

DEBATES	November 7, 196'1'
member has mentioned the fact that row housing projects are in the course of construction. This would indicate that new houses are needed to house additional people. Therefore the new industrial jobs would, on the face of it, appear to be not only taking care of the local unemployment situation but also making provision for new jobs for new entrants into the area.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
As I pointed out to the delegation from Owen Sound, it is not the purpose and object of this program to accelerate or indeed to induce industrial expansion in rural areas but rather to provide new job opportunities in areas of Canada, whether urban or rural, suffering from high chronic unemployment. One has been successful, and I suggest in this case the success has been more than moderate. It is clear that the incentives which accompany designation should be removed and be applied to those less favoured, less fortunate areas where chronic unemployment continues to be high and unrelieved.


Percy Verner Noble: May I ask the minister one question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the time allotted to the minister has expired.



GRAIN-PROPOSED INCREASE IN AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CASH ADVANCES

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, November 1, as recorded at page 3745 of Hansard, I rose in the house and put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which I believe involves a matter of urgency. In spite of the glowing report given by the minister last evening on the state of agriculture in Canada, in view of the dire cash shortage suffered by western farmers due to the loss of wheat markets would the minister give serious consideration to immediately amending the legislation on interest free cash advances on farm stored grain so that double the amount, namely $3,000, can be made available to our hard pressed farmers?
To make my reference to $3,000 clear let me state that this is the amount presently available under the act, and I was requesting consideration by the minister to make double this amount or approximately $6,000, available to our hard pressed farmers in western Canada. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat tonight but I realize the hon. gentleman is on his way to Rome to
November 7, 1967	COMMONS
attend a meeting of the FA.O. I thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his courtesy in being present tonight to give me an answer to my question.
In reply to a related question put in support of mine by the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Nasserden) the Minister of Trade and Commerce said: "Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not anticipating making any announcement."
This is the kind of answer from those on the government side that necessitates members of the opposition, like myself, taking the floor at this time to make the strongest protest possible against the government's indifference to the present serious plight of farmers in western Canada.
One of the greatest economic and political boobs that the present government has made in recent years was to allow the international world wheat agreement to lapse for a period of 11 months. This has done untold economic damage not only to Canadian farmers but also to farmers in other countries. As a basis for putting my question to the minister regarding a substantial increase in cash advances on farm stored grain let me quote from several of the items appearing in headlines in newspapers of current issues. I have here a copy of the Regina Leader Post date November 1,	1967. One headline reads:
"Canada's Wheat Export Just Trickle", and it reads as follows":
World abundance and a free market have reduced Canada's three-year flood of wheat exports to a comparative trickle. Some prairie farmers, their bins overflowing with grain they can't deliver, are running short of cash.
The situation is getting serious, F. F. Hamilton, chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners, said Tuesday, "Our whole system is getting plugged up with wheat."
Mr. Hamilton said weekly export movements are only about half those in 1966 and the country's grain elevators are running out of storage space.
In the first 12 weeks of the current crop year which began Aug. 1, wheat exports amounted to
61,400,000	bushels. This was 92,300,000 behind 196667 and the slowest pace since 1955-56, when overseas shipments were 49,904,000 bushels in the first three months of the crop year.
It goes on to mention that quotas were only half of last year's at this time, and it continues:
James Richardson and Sons, Winnipeg grain merchants, noted in its weekly market letter that the maximum quota set by the Canadian Wheat Board for grain deliveries by farmers is two bushels an acre. At October 31, 1966 the maximum was four bushels an acre.
DEBATES	4027
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In other words, twice as much.
Another headline reads "Shipments Decline", and the text reads as follows:
In August and September, overseas shipments to China amounted to 2,739,000 bushels compared with
24,455,000	bushels in the same 1966 period.
Japan took 4,911,000 bushels compared with 7,-
878,000	in 1966.
Wheat prices have been on a downward slide for the last four months. In June, No. 1 northern was going at $2.12| at the lake-head and on Tuesday it was $1.91|. In other words there was a drop of 20 cents. This is a problem not only in Canada, Mr. Speaker, but when you start looking at the newspapers from abroad you find other exporting nations are also expressing their fears. I noticed an article quoted in the Manitoba Co-operator for November 2 which is headlined, "Who Pushed the Panic Button?" The article reads:
A mild panic seems to have developed in official Washington circles over grain prices. Apparently, it's because present levels pose a serious threat to the administration-
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on to indicate something of the basis of these cash advances. I believe, however, that is well known to the house. This measure was introduced in 1957 to provide for the basic needs of the farmers at that time. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same basic needs are now prevalent, perhaps even on a greater scale. I know that our time is limited, so I do not intend to take up too much time quoting from the act. I believe, however, that the terms are well known to hon. members.
Many western farmers now find themselves in dire financial straits as a result of the large pile-up of grain in the bins and shipping terminals, as well as the severe drop of 22 cents per bushel in wheat prices. I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture to introduce legislation at once to amend the prairie grain cash advance measure so that double the amount of cash may be made available to farmers at this time in order that they can meet their heavy commitments of higher taxes, higher fuel and repair costs, higher machinery costs and the heavy increase in the cost of living.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, since this matter is administered through the wheat board, I expect that perhaps it is more properly under my jurisdiction than that of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). However, this does
4028	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not in any way alter the arguments put forward by the hon. member. I do not want to take issue with him too strongly because this is a very serious matter. It is a fact that we are encountering difficult competition in the international marketing situation. However, markets are turning more orderly, and I think that with a little patience, courage and resolution we will work out of this situation.
I do want to refer to the hon. member's remarks concerning the government's attitude toward the continuation of the price structure under the old international wheat agreement. If I can interpret the attitude of western farmers, they spoke to us unanimously in requesting us to never again enter into an extension of the international wheat agreement, particularly that part that applies to the price structure. Despite the fact that prices are lower now than they were several months ago, they are still considerably higher than the minimum under the old international wheat agreement.
On previous occasions I have heard one or two hon. members, and I think one in particular from the opposite side, say that the price structure under the international wheat agreement should have been carried through.
I again checked with farm organizations in western Canada, farm communities and the wheat board, and I could find no support whatever for that view. In fact, had we adhered to the old price structure it would have been quite impossible to negotiate the new price structure that will prevail under the Kennedy round agreement which, as my hon. friend well knows, moves the range up
DEBATES	November 7, 1967
21 cents over the old price range. I dispute the validity of my hon. friend's argument on that point.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I do want to say that the legislation to which he refers has been effectively used by the western farm community. I have some interesting statistics here to show the use to which it was put. The maximum utilization was made of it in the crop year 1960-61 when $64 million were drawn down in cash advances by the farmers. The next highest year was 1963-64, when $62 million were drawn down. For the other years since it was put into effect, from 1957-1958 until the present time, amounts drawn down have varied from $16.5 million, approximately, to the high figure I mentioned.
At this time I wish to commend the farm community for its excellent record of repayment. As to the current situation, the normal, average draw down of individuals varies from $700 to $992-say $1,000 in round figures. This year the average draw down has been $1,139, and as of November 3, 1967 the total draw down was $35,713,000. Viewed in the light of the high figure I mentioned for other years, the program is operating well within itself. We are watching it closely and are studying the statistics on a day to day basis.
My position at the moment is as I stated it to be when replying to a question. We are observing the situation closely.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Wednesday, November 8, 1967