1967-11-08

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-182 entitled: "An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (Qualifications of Senators)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Speaker, the only amendment to subsection (6) of section 23 of the British North America Act, 1867, consists in substituting the word "and", underlined opposite, for the word "or".
The amendment provides that a person called to the Senate to represent the province of Quebec must not only own the real estate required within the riding for which that person is appointed, but that he must also be a resident of the riding.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario; one additional judge of the Superior Court of Quebec; two additional judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; one additional judge of the Supreme Court of Alberta, and three additional judges of the county and district courts of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the original cost estimate for the veterinary college to be constructed at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon campus, and how much did the federal government propose to contribute to the construction of this college?
2.	Has a revised cost estimate been presented to the federal government and, if so, what is the new cost estimate and how much is the federal government prepared to contribute?
3.	If the government has made a firm commitment on cost sharing, when was this commitment
made?
4.	What payments have been made by the federal government to date, and when were these payments made?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	$2,500,000. The federal government's contribution to be 25 per cent of the cost of approved construction to a maximum of $625,000.
2.	Yes. New cost estimate $8,000,000. The federal government's contribution to be 37.5 per cent of the cost of approved construction to a maximum of $3,000,000.
3.	Initial commitment, June 20, 1963; maximum revised, June 2, 1966; maximum revised, March 2, 1967; rate and maximum revised, October 31, 1967.
4.	$80,341.31, March 1966. $124,738.44, December 1966.


STUDIES FOR LABOUR RELATIONS TASK FORCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many studies have been commissioned by the labour relations task force, and what are the titles ol each of these studies?
2.	What are the names and qualifications of each person assigned to do each study planned by the labour relations task force?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The following is a list of the research studies which have been commissioned by the labour relations task force: Responsible Decision-Making in Democratic Trade Unions. An Evaluation of Civil and Criminal Disobedience. Devolution du patronat et ses repercussions sur les attitudes et pratiques patronales dans le domaine des

November 8, 1967
Questions
relations industrielles. La concurrence syndicate. The Postwar Socio-Economic-Political Context. Le syndicalisme, la consommation et la societe de consommation. L'organisation des mouvements syndicaux au Quebec. La philosophie du syndicalisme quebecois. Unfair Labour Practices. The Role of the Manpower Consultative Services Section of the Canadian Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Rote of the Labour-Management consultation Branch of the Canadian Department of Labour. Professional Workers and Collective Bargaining. Collective Bargaining and the Trade-Oif Problem. Industrial Unrest. Criteria for Identifying Emergency Disputes. White Collar Workers and Collective Bargaining. The Philosophy of the Labour Movement. Human Adjustment to Industrial Conversion. Essential-Industry Dispute-Settlement Techniques. The Impact of Industrial Conversion. The Size and Composition of Bargaining Units. Supervisors and Collective Bargaining. The Affluent Society, Conspicuous Consumption and the Demand for More. Automation and Employment. A Perspective on the Use of Violence in Labour Disputes. Public Opinion and Industrial Relations. Contract Ratification and Strike Authorization Procedures. Employer Approaches and Practices in Industrial Relations (English Canada). Provincial Conciliation Practices. Compulsory Arbitration. Labour Arbitration Procedures. The Substantive Law of Labour Arbitration. The Implications of United States Wage Parity. Provincial Case Studies. Case Studies of Industrial Disputes.
2.	The following is a list of the persons assigned to each study: Palmer, Earl E., Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario. MacGuigan, Mark, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School. Belanger, Laurent, Professor, Department of Industrial Relations, Laval University. Belanger, Paul, Professor, Department of Sociology, Laval University. Pentland, H. C., Professor, Department of Economics, University of Manitoba. Solasse, Bernard, Professor, Department Industrial Relations, Laval University. Dofny, Jacques, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Montreal. Tremblay, L. M., Professor, Department of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal. Christie, Innis, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University. Montague, J. Tait, Professor, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of British Columbia. Gold-enberg, Mrs. Shirley, Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Reuber, Grant, Professor, Department of

Economics and Sociology, University of Western Ontario. Jamieson, Stuart, Professor, Department of Economics and Political Science, University of British Columbia. Verge, Pierre, Professor, Faculty of Law, Laval University. Bairstow, Mrs. Frances, Industrial Relations Centre, McGill University. Williams, C. Brian, Professor, Faculty of Business Administration and Commerce, University of Alberta. Kruger, Arthur, Professor, Department of Political Economy, University of Toronto. Arthurs, H. W., Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School. Loubser, J. J., Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. Herman, E. E., Professor, Department of Economics, University of Cincinnati. Rogow, Robert, Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University. Wesley, W., Professor, (Industrial Relations Centre), McGill University. Beach, E. F., Professor, Dept, of Economics, McGill University. Cote, Frangoise, Journalist, Ottawa. March, R., Professor, Dept, of Political Science, Carleton University. Morin, Fernand, Professor, Faculty of Law, Laval University. Wettlaufer, J., School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario. Cunningham, W. B., Professor, Economics Department, Mount Allison University. Brown, D., Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School. Schiff, S., Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Weiler, Paul C., Osgoode Hall Law School. Wonnacott, P., Professor, Department of Economics, University of Maryland. Kovacs, Aranka, Department of Economics, University of Windsor. Flood, Max, Institute of Industrial Relations, Michigan State University.


REPORT OF LABOUR RELATIONS TASK FORCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	When is it expected that the studies commissioned by the labour relations task force will be completed?
2.	When is it planned that the reports of the labour relations task force will be completed?
3.	What is the estimate as to the cost involved until the final report of the labour relations task force is completed?


John Ross Matheson: 1. The task force has received some preliminary reports of the studies, and it expects that most of the remaining preliminary reports will be received by the end of the year. It is further expected that these reports, if revision is necessary, will be completed by early 1968.
November 8, 1967

2.	It is expected that the task force will complete an interim report before the end of 1967 and that the final report of the task force will be completed in 1968.
3.	It is estimated that the labour relations task force will cost $1.4 million.


DEVELOPMENT OF NEW GRAIN &quot;TRITICALE&quot;
Mr. Isabelle: Did the government of Canada give financial support to the research which developed the new grain called "tritieale"?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of Defence Production: Yes.


WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What is the present bed capacity of Westminster hospital, London, Ontario, by (a) single occupancy rooms (b) double occupancy rooms (c) more than double occupancy rooms?
2.	What is the total patient capacity of Westminster hospital, London, Ontario?
3.	What was the average registration of patients for each of the first eight months of 1967?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minisier of Veierans Affairs):: 1. (a) 105 beds; (b) 136 beds; (c) 1,140 beds.
2.	1,381.
3.	January, 1,028; February, 1,048; March, 1,059; April, 1,052; May, 1,034; June, 1,024; July, 997; August, 1,005.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What are the requirements for admission into the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	Are the member's actions subject to any discipline or regulations?
3.	How many members of the Company of Young Canadians are (a) civil servants (b) volunteers?
4.	How much did the Company of Young Canadians cost the federal government last year?
5.	How many civil servants associated with this
group earn more than (a)	$20,000	(b)	$15,000
(c) $10,000 (d) $5,000?
6.	How many are (a) English speaking (b) French speaking (c) bilingual?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	The minimum age for a volunteer member
Questions
is eighteen years of age. Candidates are invited on the basis of an application form to a selection weekend and the successful ones are given trainee status for a period of field training. At the end of field training, another selection process takes place and successful trainees are granted volunteer status. The company recruits, trains and assigns volunteers. This is not done through the Public Service Commission.
2.	Volunteers are required to act within policies and procedures established by the provisional council.
3.	The executive director and the officers and employees of the Company of Young Canadians are not part of the public service, except as provided in section 19 of the Company of Young Canadians Act. There are 56 non-clerical staff members, and 180 volunteers and trainees.
4.	$854,307.70.
5.	See answer to part 3. Of the company's staff members, (a) none; (b) 3; (c) 22; (d) 33.
6.	(a) 33; (b) 25; (c) 27.


CONTRACT BETWEEN ATOMIC ENERGY AND DEUTERIUM LTD.
Mr. Basford: 1.	Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited entered into contracts with Deuterium of Canada Limited and, if so, what are the basic terms of those contracts?
2.	On what dates were the contracts made?
3.	When the first contract was made, what was the approximate date when it was expected that the heavy water plant at Glace Bay would be in production?
4.	Has any heavy water been produced by the plant and, if not, when will the plant begin production?
5.	Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had to purchase heavy water from sources outside Canada because Deuterium of Canada Limited has failed to begin production on time?
6.	Who are the stockowners of Deuterium of Canada Limited?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: 1.	Yes; two. The basic terms of the contracts are that Deuterium of Canada Limited will construct a heavy water production plant and produce stipulated quantities of heavy water and that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will underwrite the sale of such heavy water by guaranteeing to purchase

November 8, 1967
Questions
unsold heavy water at stipulated prices. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has an option to purchase all or any part of such heavy water.
2.	February 27, 1964 and September 9, 1966.
3.	July 31, 1966.
4.	No. Deuterium of Canada Limited advise that they expect production to commence in March, 1968.
5.	Yes.
6.	It is understood that Deuterium of Canada Limited is owned by Industrial Estates Limited and the province of Nova Scotia.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON GARDINER DAM CEREMONIES
Mr. McLelland: What was the total expenditure of the federal government pertaining to the opening ceremonies and celebrations of the Gardiner dam on July 21, 1967?


John James Greene: 


$17,550. LIAISON OFFICERS, CITIZENSHIP BRANCH, STATE SECRETARY'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Brand: 1.	How many regional and senior liaison officers are employed by the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What are their total salaries?
4.	To whom do they report their activities?
5.	Are such reports available?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	There are 17 regional liaison officers and three senior liaison officers employed by the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.
2.	Maritime region: St. John's, Newfoundland, 1 officer; Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1 officer; Moncton, New Brunswick, 1 officer. Quebec region: Quebec city, Quebec, 1 officer; Montreal, Quebec, 3 officers; Rouyn, Quebec, 1 officer. Ontario region: Sudbury, Ontario, 1 officer; London, Ontario, 1 officer; Toronto, Ontario, 3 officers; Hamilton, Ontario, 1 officer; Fort William, Ontario, 1 officer. Western region: Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1 officer; Regina, Saskatchewan, 1 officer; Edmonton, Alberta, 2 officers; Vancouver, British Columbia, 1 officer.
3.	$202,290.
4.	Assistant director (operations)-Ottawa.
5.	No.


NAME OF GATINEAU PARK
Mr. Caouelle: What is the name given by the government to Gatineau park?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. In French, "Parc de la Gatineau", and in English, "Gatineau park".


ENLARGEMENT OF VALCARTIER CAMP
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the total amount paid for the purchase of property necessary for the enlargement of Valcartier military camp?
2.	How much has the government spent to date for (a) the development of this new property (b) the construction of buildings?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. To date $2,174,317.89.
2. Nil.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ST. AUGUSTIN, QUE.
Mr. Godin: Are there plans to construct a post office on the federal government property at St. Augustin, county of Portneuf, Quebec?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION, PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Godin: What amount has the federal government paid for the construction of retaining walls on the St. Lawrence river in Portneuf constituency in each of the past 10 years?


George James McIlraith: 1957-58, $15,093.52; 1958-59, $21,832.47;	1959-60,	$47,989.04;	1960-61,	$25,552.85;	1961-62,	$75,274.60;	1962-63,	$80,430.94;	1963-64,	$10,743.46;	1964-65,	$76,-
790.88; 1965-66, $66,207.39; 1966-67, $23,318.36. [English]


CIVILIAN DAMAGE BY MILITIA TROOPS ON NATO TRAINING
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the number of militia troops who trained with the NATO troops on exercises in Germany in the summer of 1967?
November 8. 1967

2.	Were such militia troops blamed for damage to civilian property?
3.	If so, what was the amount of the damage and what troops were involved?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 289.
2.	No. The extent of the damage caused by the exercise which involved several countries as well as Canada, is ascertained by a crop damage claims organization which assesses crop damage each time a major exercise is undertaken in Germany, and any claims for damage are processed through the British army on the Rhine headquarters.
3.	Not applicable.


BAIL FOR B.C. CHINESE IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration release Ng Chun Yeung (pronounced Eng Chun Young) the son of a Canadian citizen on bond from the immigration jail in Vancouver where he has been held since June 5, 1967 without bond until such time as his appeal can be heard in January or February of 1968?
2.	Would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration outline the reasons why the bond in question has been refused, and is that information generally communicated to an immigrant who seeks bail while incarcerated in Canada pending a hearing or an appeal?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. No. Legally, the authority for releasing a person detained rests with the special inquiry officer. I have reviewed the circumstances of Mr. Ng's detention and believe the special inquiry officer has acted properly in refusing bond. The British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed two writs of habeas corpus brought before it to obtain his release. A further motion of certiorari to quash the deportation order was also dismissed by the Chief Justice of British Columbia.
2. Ng Chun Yeung's case is now before the British Columbia court of appeal. One of the grounds of his appeal is the refusal of the special inquiry officer to grant bond. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the reasons the bond in question has been refused. Although the special inquiry officer is not required by law to give reasons for refusing a bond, these are normally given if requested.
Questions


PHOTOGRAPHS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence or any of its defence forces offices in possession of photographs of certain airborne objects, which photographs were reportedly given over to Canadian defence department officials by one Warren Smith of Calgary, Alberta?
2.	Were these photographs or copies thereof made available to any of the Canadian newspapers or news magazines?
3.	Were any requests made by any Canadian newspapers or news magazines for access to these photographs?
4.	In all cases where Canadian defence department officials have interviewed persons reporting the sighting of unidentified flying objects, have departmental officials requested such persons to not communicate with newspaper reporters, etc. and, if so, for what reason?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes, the department is in possession of duplicate 35 mm. slides and one set of prints.
2.	Not by the Department of National Defence.
3.	Yes. All were referred to Mr. Warren Smith.
4.	All persons who communicate information to the Department of National Defence on alleged unidentified flying objects do so on their own volition and are in no way requested to suppress the release of the information to any other person or persons.


INCREASE IN STEEL AND NICKEL PRODUCTION
Mr. Godin: Does the federal government foresee a forthcoming increase in steel and nickel production in Canada and, if so, will this increase enable us to reduce our imports of stainless steel kitchen utensils from Japan?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Increases in steel and nickel production are expected. Current capacity for production of stainless steel is adequate to supply requirements of stainless steel kitchen utensil manufacturers.
The supply of stainless steel is only one of many complex factors affecting the competitiveness in the Canadian market of manufacturers of stainless steel kitchen utensils.

November 8, 1967
Orders for Returns


PROMOTIONS TO CORPORAL, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Lamberl: 1.	What number of promotions to the rank of corporal or its equivalent were made in the navy, army and the air force in the periods (a) October 1, 1966 to March 31, 1967 (b) April 1, 1967 to September 30, 1967?
2.	What is the number of corporals including senior corporals in each of the three branches of the armed services respectively as at October 1, 1967?
Hon. Leo	Cadieux	(Minister of	NationalDefence): 1.	RCN	Army	RCAF(a)	1,564	4,650	12,728(b)	351	1,451	2,3212.	4,344	11,696	19,334


INCREASE IN U.K. QUOTA ON FRESH APPLES
Mr. McLean (Charlotte): Has the British quota on fresh apples been increased and, if so, what is the significance of
this increase for Canadian exports of fresh apples to the British market?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes, the British import quota for fresh apples for the period July to December, 1967, was increased from 15,200 long tons to 22,800 long tons and the quota for the period January to June, 1968, from 68,750 long tons to 91,670 long tons. The larger quotas provided an improved opportunity for Canadian apple exporters to increase their sales to Britain, which in 1966 amounted to over $4 million.


WHEAT AND FLOUR EXPORT SALES
Mr. Olson: How much wheat and flour were sold for export by the Canadian Wheat Board in each of the crop years 1956-57 to 1966-67 inclusive?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (for Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Total Canadian	Wheat and Flour Exports,	Crop Years	1956-57 to 1966-67Crop Year	Wheat (bushels)	Flour	Total1956-57	230,856,235	33,539,591	264,395,8261957-58	279,911,998	40,380,838	320,292,8361958-59	257,420,606	37,124,914	294,545,5201959-60	240,320,999	36,969,954	277,290,9531960-61	317,567,616	35,681,823	353,249,4391961-62	326,068,668	31,953,154	358,021,8221962-63	304,101,964	27,265,254	331,367,2181963-64	539,637,481	54,910,150	594,547,6311964-65	368,051,957	31,542,359	399,594,3161965-66	546,780,878	38,125,068	584,905,9461966-67	483,455,730	32,865,908	516,321,638



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What will be the cost of constructing the vessels Parizeau, Vector and Dawson which were built for the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	Who is constructing these three vessels?
3.	When will they be ready for launching? 
4.	What will be the personnel complement of each of these ships?
5.	What will be the salary of each?
6.	How many scientists will there be on board?
7.	Where will they be posted and for what purpose?
8.	Is the construction of other vessels of this type visualized during the next two years?
9.	If so, (a) how many (b) what will be the estimated tonnage of each (c) what is the estimated cost of constructing these new ships (d) to what duties will they be assigned (e) where will they be posted?
Return tabled.
November 8, 1967


TOTAL FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. Rynard: What are the total taxes collected by the federal government, in all forms, from each of the province of Canada?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion for papers No. 29 is acceptable to the
government.
Motion for papers No. 24 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motion Nos. 26 and 28?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.



TREASURY BOARD ALLOTMENTS FROM CONTINGENCY VOTE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Bell (Carlefon):
That an order of the house do issue for a statement of all allotments, for pay-list and non paylist, made from Treasury Board vote 5 for contingencies from April 1 to November 1 in the fiscal year 1967-68.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Nielsen:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents, reports, engineering or other surveys, communications, correspondence or other papers, with respect to the construction of a road from Carcross in the Yukon to Skagway, Alaska, U.S.A.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 24 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
REPORTS ON NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN Motion No. 26-Mr. Jorgenson:
That an humble adddress be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
Motions for Papers
before this house a copy of pertinent documents, correspondence or other communications between the various commissions set up to study a national capital plan (including the National Capital Commission and its predecessors), and the successive governments to which these various commissions have reported.
Mr. J. B. Sfewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion, if adopted as now worded, would require the production of a vast amount of material. However, I understand that what the hon. member wants, at least at present, is either a copy of the plans for the national capital or, where extra copies of plans are not readily available, appropriate library references. If the notice could be modified so as to require only papers of these kinds, the notice then would raise no problem.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to have the motion adopted with the reservations and conditions which have been expressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations which have been expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 26 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all communications, letters, telegrams, etc., received by the government of Canada relating to the decision of the Canadian transport commission which allowed the railways to impose new nontariff rates on less than carload traffic in the Atlantic provinces, and answers thereto.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the production of communications received relating to a "decision of the Canadian Transport Commission" which allowed the railways to impose certain new rates. I should like to make clear that there was no such decision, nor is there any responsibility with the commission for such a decision. The railways are free, under the legislation, to set these rates subject to the filing of notice. They filed such notice and the rates were accordingly set. This being understood, the government would be quite willing to produce for the hon. member all communications received by the government, and replies thereto, relating
November 8, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry to this decision of the railways. The commission is likewise prepared to make available any communication which is in its nature public.


Mr. Coates:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 28 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that he would look into the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning off-shore rights, will the Prime Minister advise the house now whether it is the intention of this government to seek further opinions from the court with reference to off-shore rights as they affect other provinces?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to add too much to what I said yesterday. The matter is being very carefully considered. As soon as I can report to the house I shall be very glad to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on a previous occasion to the effect that the matter would be discussed with the provinces after legal opinion was sought, is it the intention of the Prime Minister now to call a provincial conference to reach a decision in the light of the important economic and unity decisions which face Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any special conference is required for this purpose.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Prior to yesterday, November 7, had the federal government entered into any provisional agreement with any company concerning offshore exploration in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I intended to ask a supplementary question to the first question put to the Prime Minister concerning the Supreme Court decision respecting offshore rights of British Columbia. Since this decision applied only to the west coast, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to deal with the problem of Nova Scotia by consultation, or is it the intention that the rights of Nova Scotia to offshore minerals be referred to the Supreme Court?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are now discussing the best procedure to follow in order to clear up this matter in the light of the decision which has been rendered.


Malcolm MacInnis: During these discussions will the Prime Minister take into consideration that a precedent has been established by Nova Scotia under which the province has been taking offshore minerals for nearly 100 years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government of Nova Scotia certainly has brought its special position to our attention.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court yesterday confirming the sentence of indefinite preventive detention of George Klippert, and since most authorities are now agreed that homosexuality is a social and psychiatric problem rather than a criminal one, I should like to ask the government whether it will consider setting up a commission similar to the Wolfenden commission in Great Britain which brought in such enlightened and humane recommendations for coping with this problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to consider that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether any departments of government have been giving any study to this social problem.
November 8, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking a question of a general nature, similar to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. It was suggested at that time that questions along these lines might well be placed on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I rephrase my question and ask the Minister of Justice whether this matter is being studied by officials of his department and the minister himself.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, one aspect of this matter is being looked at in context of another law. It has also been suggested that we might possibly extend the terms of reference of the Ouimet committee, in order that it may look into this matter if that is possible at this stage.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Did the minister have discussions, or is he having discussions at the present time, with the United States authorities concerning the continued operation of the Val d'Or air base?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister advise the house what is the commitment of this government to provide an airlift to Rwanda for the evacuation of Katangan and mercenary troops from the Congo, and what was the basis of such a decision?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to take this question as notice.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I direct the question to the Minister of National Defence.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we have received a request from the International Red Cross which was also presented to Belgium, Great Britain, France and the United States. The purpose of this operation would be to evacuate Katangans who have taken refuge in Rwanda and transport them to Zambia. As the situation now stands we have agreed to commit one Hercules aircraft, which is standing by until we receive a release from the Red Cross.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister request an assurance that these rebel troops will not be used against Rhodesia, in view of the repeated terrorist incursions into Rhodesia from Zambia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that question. I will do one thing today, and that is congratulate my hor friend on his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the minister. I do have another supplementary question, wh-icl I will not ask.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I ask the
Minister of National Defence a supplementary question related to the minister's answer a few minutes ago concerning the transport of Zambia refugees. Can the minister tell us if these refugees are of African or European origin?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: They are of African origin.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether the government is yet in a position to announce its plans, which have been some weeks in preparation for easing the expected suffering of producers, who produce exclusively for Canadian markets, as a result of the impact of Kennedy round tariff reductions.
4038
November 8, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to do so soon.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give some indication as to when "soon" might be, in view of the fact that it was some seven weeks ago that he indicated to me that the plans were in preparation, and it is only seven weeks to the time when the Kennedy round reductions come into effect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the time taken in preparing these plans is, I think, an indication of their excellence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry was answering for industry as such, is the government preparing plans to give similar protection to agricultural producers similarly affected?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A few minutes ago I asked whether the government was preparing plans to ease the impact of the Kennedy round tariff reductions on agricultural producers who were adversely affected and the Prime Minister did not answer. Do I take it from his refusal to answer that the government is not preparing such plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Could the hon. gentleman report whether the wildcat strike of postal employees in southern Ontario has now been settled; are they back at work, or has the strike spread, and what steps is the government taking?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the strike is not settled. In fact I learned this morning that the employees of a further post office have gone on strike. This means that the employees of seven post offices in the Niagara peninsula are on strike. Union leaders are in Ottawa at

the moment discussing the matter at the fourth level of their grievance procedure. These discussions are being held right at this moment.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask whether he is able to make today the announcement regarding freight tariffs, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, which was promised by the hon. member for Westmorland about a week ago and which the minister himself said he would make.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not today, Mr. Speaker, but with a little bit of luck, very soon.


Mr. Knowles:: With a little bit of luck we will get a new government.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the undertaking given by the hon. member for Westmorland was that the announcement would be made this week, would the minister tell the house whether, if not today, he will make it tomorrow or Friday?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That would be a very happy result, and I am cautiously optimistic, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he thinks that with the "little bit of luck" he referred to, he will be able to get this government to the church in time?


An hon. Member:: To the funeral.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As long as my hon. friend will be there when we arrive, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been cautiously optimistic about his announcement. Could he go a little further and indicate whether his announcement will be made before the meeting a week from today, on November 15, of the interested parties with regard to l.c.l. rates?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker.
November 8, 1967



CREAM-REQUEST FOR RESCISSION OF RECENT INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: My question is supplementary to an earlier question asked of the Minister of Transport. On October 30 the parliamentary secretary replying for the Minister of Transport indicated that within a week or ten days the minister might have an answer to my question concerning freight rates on cream. Does the minister have a reply to that question now, or does he intend to reply to it at the same time he replies to the question concerning less than carload loadings?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not today, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been advised that apprentice telegraphers right across Canada have been informed by the C.N.R. that they were permanently laid off as of November 1, even though they had received a commitment from the C.N.R. that they would be assured a 40-hour work week on a year round basis? If so does he plan to take any action to investigate this situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not been made aware of this specific problem, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly take the question as notice.



REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH UNION OFFICIALS RESPECTING LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he advise the house whether he has acceded to the request of the C.B. of R.T. to meet with the national president, Mr. William Smith, his regional vice presidents from across Canada, and other union representatives regarding the large scale layoffs by the C.N.R. in the Atlantic region and other areas of Canada? If so, when will the requested meeting take place, where, and what cabinet ministers will be present?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a question involving interdepartmental discussions. As my hon. friend has suggested, several ministers are involved and I do not have an answer yet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the lay-offs are now national in scope does the minister not consider it is time he met with officers of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is argumentative.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the overpayment by employers of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. This overpayment is estimated to be as high as $15 million. The minister advised the house on April 25 that when a survey or a study had been made of the situation he would tell the house the method or form in which these overpayments would be refunded. Is the minister now in a position to make this statement?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figure in front of me but the overpayment was vastly overestimated, and the figure turned out to be almost identical with what the government had forecast. Second, I would like to indicate that we are presently consulting one of the provinces on what action if any would be agreeable in this particular situation, and in due course we will consult all the provinces.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house what is the amount he referred to?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this type of information can be asked at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a verbal volley to
November 8, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the genial Secretary of State for External Affairs to establish the truth in certain matters. In view of the fact that yesterday I put a question to the minister with respect to the appointment of the commander of NATO forces in Europe, central sector, based on information contained in West German newspapers which I received, would the minister inform the house of the facts with respect to the reported appointment of General Albert Schnez as commander of NATO forces in Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubts as to whether the question is in order at this time. Perhaps the hon. member might want to place it on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has caused concern among some Canadians and among some of our troops, and I think it is a matter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have an opportunity to correct.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, is it your wish that this question be answered? I think it is a marginal question, but in view of my hon. friend's persistence I would like to give him a reply. General Schnez has indicated that he is not a candidate for the important post of Commander, Allied Forces Central Europe, and the minister of defence in West Germany has denied that there is any justification for the charges contained in questions such as the one put by my hon. friend yesterday. He affirmed there is no foundation for these allegations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the minister I sincerely apologize for what now appears to be the unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm in my question yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. It concerns figures released by some newspapers indicating that $200 million worth of firearms have been exported by Canada to the United States for use in Viet Nam. Considering that Canada's position is supposed to be neutral, is the minister able to tell the house whether there will be any undertaking by the federal government not to furnish firearms in the future?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no semblance of correctness in those figures.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
In view of the fact that the number of unemployed in the Montreal area is now over 63,000, or equal to 6.3 per cent of the labour force, would the minister advise what projects he intends to propose to relieve the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement of a very general nature and it seems to me that this information should be given to the house on motions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent question, because 63,000 people are without employment and it is important that they receive the necessary help from the government, and here I refer to the Chevrier-Martin plan of 1960.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the situation in the Quebec city area, does the department or the government intend to declare that region a designated area?


Jean Marchand: The application of the act governing designated areas does not concern my department, Mr. Speaker.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MEET UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of releases indicating serious increases in the unemployment figures for October, and also in the light of reports at noon today that the average in British Columbia is 1.8 per cent above the
November 8, 1967

national average, will the minister say what plans he has for discussions with the provincial government of British Columbia to find some ways of providing employment in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the question now asked by the hon. member for Kamloops is not closely related to the one asked by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. It seems to me that the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot are asking for statements which should normally be made on motions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was a precedent established by a former opposition. However, may I rephrase my question. Does the minister have any plans for immediate discussions with British Columbia concerning joint efforts to provide employment there?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my department is in constant touch with just about all the provinces to obtain jobs for the unemployed and to give retraining to those who need it. In short, the department services are in full operation and they work in co-operation with the provinces.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask a
supplementary question. My question is equally applicable to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Labour, and relates to the herring fishery on the west coast. Up to 1,000 people are going to be unemployed, in fact are unemployed, because of a decision of the federal Department of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether he or the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Labour will take immediate steps to go to British Columbia to meet with the representatives of the unions, companies, civic and provincial officials to ascertain what alternative employment can be provided to these people?


Jean Marchand: The answer is the same. We have manpower centres in British Columbia which are in touch with the provincial authorities, and it is the job of these manpower centres to find solutions to these problems.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the importance that we must place on winter works in creating employment, will the minister give every consideration to continuing brush clearing within the winter works program in northern areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have announced our program, and brush clearing is accepted in so far as it is related to a permanent project. There are meetings this week between the officials in my department and the provincial officials at which this program is being reviewed for next year.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding a recent decision by the transport commission after a proper hearing. Will the minister investigate the objections of the Canadian National to this decision in order that the rights and privileges of the town of Fergus in connection with one of their main thoroughfares will be protected?


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



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but because of its importance, I should like to transfer it to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what action, if any, his government is taking in connection with the increase on November 2 of approximately 5 per cent in the price of tractors and combines by the John Deere Machinery company?



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and
November 8, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Commerce if he can advise the house whether Canada has signed the international grains agreement.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have signed the international grains arrangement. The Canadian ambassador in Washington signed the wheat trade convention and the food aid convention on November 2. These two combined comprise the international grains arrangement which is designed to come into effect on July 1, 1968.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that today is not only the birthday of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre but also the second anniversary of the last election, which means that the next one is that much closer, has the government yet arrived at a decision on referring to the standing committee on privileges and elections the report of the committee on election expenses, as was promised in the speech from the throne?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am unable to discover the relevancy of the two parts of the question. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I think the two events deserve the same measure of celebration. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, I will look into it.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he now name the four appointed members to the Northwest Territories council in order to enable those citizens who may wish to make submissions to council members to do so before next month? May I redirect my question to the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We hope to have the appointments made before the end of the week.
[Mr. McLelland.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did he receive a request from the Russian ambassador for special police protection for their embassy last night? If so, can he tell us why enough police protection was not provided to prevent the shameful lawlessness which occurred there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Department of External Affairs has been in consultation with the Ottawa police who are, of course, the authorities directly responsible for the maintenance of law and order. The measures taken by the police were inadequate in the circumstances, in my judgment, and I regret that this was so. I took note of the Soviet representations, including those made by the ambassador, and directed that all desirable means of satisfying them be pursued. We were assured by the police that everything possible would be done within the law to avoid untoward incidents and to ensure that free access to the embassy was maintained, just as we would insist on free access to our embassy in Moscow or any other capital.
The police authorities pointed out, however, that there were clear statutory limitations to action which might be taken to deal with such demonstrations. The Soviet ambassador was so informed. Citizens in Canada, of course, are free to express their opinions in a lawful way. It is the responsibility of the police to deal with those who break the law.
I have directed that the necessary measures be initiated to compensate the Soviet government and to assist the Soviet embassy to clean up and repair the damage done.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the useful work done by the joint committee on immigration in the last session, and in view of the fact that they did not get a chance to report fully on the proposals in the white paper on immigration and the new regulations, will the minister confer with his
November 8, 1967

colleague the house leader with a view to having the committee reconstituted and put back to work at an early date?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter right away.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport prompted by widespread complaint about the new Air Canada schedules for many areas of the maritimes, which are alleged to be the most inconvenient since the air age began. Will the minister inquire from Air Canada as to the possibility of improving things at least up to the level of the status quo ante?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to pass on the representations of my hon. friend and get a reply for him from Air Canada.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a related question of the minister. While he is talking to the Air Canada authorities would he draw their attention to the uncleanliness and poor quarters provided for Air Canada at Kennedy airport, one of the gateways to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a representation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: A supplementary question to the minister re transportation in the east. I should like to know whether the people in the Atlantic area can expect a little of the luck the minister is dispensing today and be given a positive announcement about the Digby-Saint John ferry, in view of the meeting between the minister and the mayor of Saint John on Monday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are working on this too, Mr. Speaker. This one is not as easy as some of the others, but there is some reason for optimism in this case as well. It is a problem involving more

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting than one agency, and it does require considerable co-ordination. I am hopeful that we can do something for the people in that part of Nova Scotia as well as on the New Brunswick side, and we are working in this direction.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the new Minister of Transport had a chance to go over the promises that his predecessor made regarding the Digby-Saint John ferry, and does he stand by those promises?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister state to this house whether the advice of the Minister of Transport to University of Toronto students to be careful of becoming overly moral with respect to the war in Viet Nam represents government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend dealt with that question.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 7, 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 amendment thereto of Mr. McCutcheon. (p. 3982).
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last night I was speaking of the importance of obtaining balanced programs of high quality on our television and radio networks. I suggested that in order to obtain programs of high quality it was important to co-ordinate the programming activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private operators, rather than have the C.B.C. and private operators competing as they now do in the provision of duplicate and unbalanced programming.
November 8. 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I pointed out that the Fowler committee had prepared a very interesting analysis of the programming carried both by the publicly-owned stations and the privately-owned stations. This appears at page 29 of their report. Briefly the report indicates that on the English language network the C.B.C. stations spent 52.2 per cent of their television time in the provision of programs of light entertainment; 37.5 per cent of their time in the provision of what is described as information; 8.1 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether hon. members would mind my bringing to their attention that the all too numerous conversations in the chamber at the present time make it extremely difficult to follow the hon. member's speech.


Ian Grant Wahn: As I was saying, Mr, Speaker, 8.1 per cent of C.B.C. television time is spent in providing sports coverage; and only 2.2 per cent of its television time is spent in providing coverage which deals with the arts, letters and sciences. So that over 50 per cent of C.B.C television time is spent on providing light entertainment.
The C.T.V. network has much the same breakdown, only slightly worse in that it is slightly more unbalanced. For example, 66.3 per cent of its television time is spent on light entertainment; 28.8 per cent on the provision of information; 4.7 per cent on the provision of sports coverage; and 0.2 per cent on the provision of coverage of the arts, letters and sciences.
The independent stations which are not allied to any particular network provide an even more unbalanced program. The figures indicate that 74.8 per cent of the time of independent television stations is spent on providing so-called light entertainment; 16.8 per cent is spent on providing information; 8.4 per cent is spent on providing coverage for sports; and no discernible amount of time is spent on the coverage of the arts, letters and sciences.
I think these figures indicate the importance of doing something about programming and underline the importance of co-ordinating programming of the C.B.C. with the programming of the private stations. They also emphasize the importance of stimulating the development of several networks across Canada so that on each network there will be a more balanced program as between light entertainment and better quality programs. If that were done, Mr. Speaker, it would mean that Canadians would have a choice at

any given time whether to watch one type of program or another.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, you can switch on to the C.T.V. network and view a program of light entertainment. If you turn the knob and tune in the C.B.C. station you will probably get light entertainment there as well. If you were within the range of an independent station the chances are you would get light entertainment on that frequency too. There is no co-ordination among the various stations providing programs, with the result that we do not get a proper program choice.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The figures I have quoted from the report also indicate that a high proportion of the $141 million which the taxpayers contributed in 1967 to the C.B.C. has been devoted to providing light entertainment, sports coverage and certain information services which duplicate services already being performed by the private stations. I would suggest that a large proportion of this money should be saved, and devoted to improving the quality of the programs provided by the C.B.C., to offering better balanced programming across the country and to bringing better service to the more remote regions, especially in the north, which are not properly served at the present time.
I suggested earlier in my remarks that it would be desirable for the C.B.C. to be relieved of the housekeeping opreations it now carries on in consequence of the fact that it owns a large number of stations and has a big investment in physical facilities. Because of its involvement in these housekeeping activities the corporation may not have sufficient time to devote to its main responsibility-programming. At page 219, the Fowler report says:
One outcome of our inquiry is that the C.B.C. now has an outline of what was first described as an ideal television program schedule and was later entitled 'Programming in the Public Interest'. We find it odd that such an obviously practical planning instrument should have come into existence only at the suggestion of an outside advisory committee of laymen. Had there been, among the most senior staff and within the Board of Directors of the C.B.C., the primary concern with programming that we believe to be essential, this ideal program schedule would have been created long ago.
It is apparent that there is throughout the country and has been for some time a great deal of criticism with regard to the programming both of the C.B.C. and of the private stations. I recall that some years ago the C.B.C. had a tremendous amount of support
November 8, 1967

for its programming throughout the country. This is no longer the case. It may be that conditions have changed and that the important function which the C.B.C. then carried out is no longer one which should necessarily be performed by a publicly financed corporation.
Severe criticism has been levelled against both private and public broadcasters on the grounds that news has been improperly presented, or even slanted on occasions, and criticism has been directed also against undue emphasis of minority views during the presentation of controversial programs relating to social problems. In examining the legislation now before us I believe we should give careful consideration to whether a corporation supported by public funds should engage in the distribution of news or the presentation of programs on the more controversial social questions which now face our country, when similar coverage is already being provided by private stations.
These seem to be the programs which have got the C.B.C. into most difficulty in recent years. If we were to ask ourselves: "Should parliament provide a corporation with funds to publish a newspaper?", I am sure we should all say, no. If we were asked to provide funds to a corporation in order that it might produce a newspaper which discussed critical social issues confronting us at the present time, I believe parliament would refuse.
I find it a little difficult to understand why parliament should be called upon to furnish the C.B.C. with millions of dollars to provide a news service and a public affairs discussion service on the air when we would not even think of allotting funds for the purpose of offering the same service through a printed newspaper.
The functions of the C.B.C. should be carefully re-examined, and the bill now before us should give guidance to the corporation as to just what its functions should be in the fields which have given rise to so many problems during recent years.
All the reports which have been made by committees of inquiry have emphasized the fact-as indeed does the bill before us-that broadcasting undertakings in Canada constitute a single system which forms a public trust and must be administered in the public interest. It is clear from all these reports that many improvements can be made in the Canadian system and that in many respects both the private and the public stations have 27053-256i
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting failed to carry out their responsibilities to the public.
The Fowler committee recommended that parliament should delegate authority over all Canadian broadcasting to a single board or agency. This agency would have full power and authority to regulate, supervise, control and develop the Canadian broadcasting system. Its powers would be clearly defined in the Broadcasting Act and it would be responsible for carrying out the functions set out in the act. Its basic job, so the committee recommended, would be to develop a coordinated policy for the provision of broadcasting services to all the Canadian people by all broadcasting stations both privately and publicly owned.
Everyone has said "amen" to this, and we have all agreed that broadcasting facilities in Canada must constitute a single system. If this is so, then surely the principle of entrusting authority to a single regulatory board or agency must be correct. Mr. Speaker, the bill now being considered might have the effect of dividing authority between the Canadian radio commission and the C.B.C. This could give rise to conflict, confusion and inefficiency. Worst of all, it might involve the government in arbitrating disputes between the two public agencies. Therefore it seems to me that in the committee amendments should be considered by the minister which would give effect to the sound principle which is set out in the Fowler report of having a single, effective, regulatory agency.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The question of how the regulatory agency is to function is also of vital importance, and the method should be set out clearly in the legislation. Basically there are two ways of doing it. The first is the easy way, which has been adopted in this bill, to establish a commission and to give it unfettered authority to do the job.
Under the terms of the bill the commission is to consist of five full-time members and ten part-time members, all appointed by the governor in council. But on carefully examining the bill it appears that the real authority is in the five full-time members. They constitute the executive committee. The result is that the actual effect of the bill is to put the future of the important broadcasting industry completely in the hands of an appointed board of five full-time officials. These are appointed for a seven year term. Once they are appointed, in effect they are responsible to no one. Consistently with this
November 8, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting approach, appeals from decisions made by this group of officials are very limited. In some cases no appeals at all are permitted. In some cases the legislation provides that hearings do not even have to be in public. This is certainly the easiest way to deal with the problem; but I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is not the best way.
We must have a strong commission, but the commission must be responsible to our courts. The hearings of the commission must be in public in all cases, and there must be a full right of appeal. I also submit that decisions must not be based upon the caprice or the discretion of the members of the commission, but rather on the basis of regulations which are general in their nature, which have been published and which are well known to the public.
I realize that to regulate the broadcasting industry in this way, by means of general regulations which have the effect of law, rather than by just putting the broadcasting industry completely under the control of a commission, is more difficult; but it is the better way and it is the way which I think is more in accord with the sound traditions of this country.
The commission should be instructed by the legislation that their job is not to make decisions on individual cases. Their more important function is to establish general regulations which will set out the type of programming to be provided by all stations in Canada, including requirements for balance as among the various kinds of programs, Canadian content requirements, fairness in reporting, impartiality and high quality.
The commission should also have the important job of reviewing all programming and prosecuting, in our regular courts, any violations of the general regulations. Penalties must be severe, and in serious cases must include the power to order forfeiture of licences. This judicial type of procedure has been adopted in other areas and has worked well. It is the procedure which should be followed in the regulation of an industry as important as the Canadian broadcasting industry.
The introduction of this bill gives us the opportunity to reconsider the basic principles which should govern broadcasting in Canada. The groundwork has been well prepared by the numerous commissions and committees which in the past have investigated and reported on the industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, because his time has expired, unless he has agreement from the house to continue.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to make some remarks at this stage of the bill, but I think Your Honour will agree that there seems to be a general disposition to get it before a committee one way or the other. So I decline this opportunity and will make my remarks at another stage of the bill.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, before I make some comments with regard to Bill C-163 might I be allowed to remind the house that I am possibly the last surviving member of the groups that met with R. B. Bennett and Sir John Aird back in the early thirties when the first Canadian broadcasting commission was set up. You may wonder how one of my age would be at those meetings, and I would emphasize that at that time the Toronto Star operated a radio station of its own, CFCA, and I was sent by Mr. J. E. Atkinson, publisher of the Star and owner of CFCA to sit in on the meetings with regard to the formation of regulations for the radio world of Canada in those days.
The death in March of this year of the late Senator Rupert Davies, who was a long time family friend, was a tragic blow to me and to many, many other Canadians. I believe he and I were the last surviving two who sat in on many of those meetings. I can assure you that, as one who sat in on the meetings, took part in the discussions and knew the background for the decisions reached, it is more than amusing in the 1960's to hear speakers get up and tell us what was motivating Sir John Aird and others when they originated the first radio broadcasting commission.
I would like to point out that on October 21 of this year I had a grandson born in Charlottetown, P.E.I. and because of that, being down there with my wife, being the grandparents of the little boy, we are quite well aware of the little nursery rhyme, "Where did you come from, baby dear; Out of the everywhere into here." I want to say to you as a member of parliament that when I look at white papers, particularly the white paper on broadcasting, that was introduced more than a year ago, I have to reflect: "Where did you come from little white paper; I am the result of a cabinet caper." I cannot tell you where white papers come
November 8, 1967

from. Their origin is beyond the comprehension of private members and individual members of the House of Commons. They just appear out of the everywhere.
I have in my hand an extract from "A Parliamentary Dictionary," by L. A. Abraham, formerly principal clerk of committees of the House of Commons in England, and he defines white paper by stating that-
-government publications of all kinds, presented to parliament, are known as white papers .. . The term is associated chiefly with such command papers (i.e. papers presented by the Queen's command to parliament) as are not of sufficient size to need a blue cover.
I also have in my hand the definition of white paper from "An Encyclopaedia of Parliament" by Norman Wilding and Philip Laundy published in 1961, as follows:
A colloquial term for a government report, statement of policy, or similar document-
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I draw to your attention these two definitions of a white paper. According to these writers it is a statement of government policy, and as Mr. Laundy says, it is "a colloquial term for government report, statement of policy." If a white paper is a statement of government policy, can you imagine a committee of this house, which committee is loaded with supporters of the cabinet, bringing in any condemnatory report regarding a white paper? This white paper, which is dated 1966, was referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, of which I am a member. I took part in practically all the discussions. We were asked to analyse the white paper. An interesting thing in respect of this white paper is that it starts out on page 1, paragraph one, about line 10, by speaking of Canadian radio, and says that this strong mandate did not arise from any narrow nationalism that sought to shut out the rest of the world, and so on. This is the strong mandate the C.B.C. has had in the past.
Having sat here for five years, having been interested in the radio business for a great many years and having heard the C.B.C. refer to its great, strong and powerful mandate in the past, I find it very interesting now that the Secretary of State, when introducing the bill for second reading, as reported at page 3747 of Hansard in the left hand column, stated:
The bill-
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Bill No. C-163.
-accordingly sets out in clear language a broadcasting policy for Canada which includes, for the first time, a mandate for the national broadcasting service operated by the C.B.C.
Well, there has been an awful lot of high class lying done up to November 1, 1967, if for the first time a mandate has been established for the C.B.C., because they have been speaking eternally of a mandate which did not exist in the past. When I make reference to the Secretary of State I should like to emphasize that I have absolutely no feelings with regard to the lady, except those of admiration and respect. She is a friend of mine and I hope will long continue to be a friend. There have been some references to some recent remarks which she made regarding the radio world. It is very, very nice that this Secretary of State has as such a great precedent for what she did, what was done by the gentleman who formerly was minister of national defence. You may remember that a certain Admiral Landymore had some discussions which were not entirely too pleasant with respect to himself and the head of his department, the then minister of national defence. The then minister of national defence and Admiral Landymore parted company over words used at that time.
I am 100 per cent behind the minister of national defence of those days, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in respect of what occurred, for the simple reason that I believe in the civilian power. I believe the army, the navy and the air force are under the Minister of National Defence and are responsible to him. When I state that I support the former minister of national defence in his stand at that time, I must add that I regret very very much that he practically destroyed the value of committee work by his remark to the effect that government employed witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees must give evidence according to the line that the minister of the department has adopted, and must not express their own thoughts. With that he destroyed absolutely the value of evidence given by other employees of the government before parliamentary committees.
As the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) will remember, the president of the C.B.C. appeared before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. When he was being introduced to members of the committee I asked the chairman to ask the president of the C.B.C. if what he was about to tell us had been cleared with the
4048	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Secretary of State before he made this statement, in view of the fact that Admiral Lan-dymore had been told that his statement had to agree with the line laid down by his department head. The chairman did not really overrule me, but he kept telling the committee, "I recognize the hon. member for Royal", "I recognize the hon. member for Royal." Several times I asked the president of the C.B.C. whether what he was going to tell us had been cleared with the minister, as in the case of Admiral Landymore. Each time the chairman said, "The hon. member for Royal", "the hon. member for Royal", "I recognize the hon. member for Royal." It is nice that the Secretary of State has such precedents to justify her actions in this matter.
When the committee was sitting to consider the reference about the program "Seven Days" I refused to have anything to do with examining or listening to the producers who were telling us that they should have absolute power to do what they liked, and that the management of the C.B.C. had no control over them. I said at that time in no uncertain terms that they were responsible to and under the direction of management. Management can either manage properly or mismanage. In this case I think that the management did not have enough control over the producers. I said I would not listen to these producers attacking the management of the C.B.C. I did say, however, that I would come to the committee meetings if my presence was necessary, in order to maintain a quorum. On two occasions they dragged me out of other committee meetings where there was more than a quorum to come to the meeting of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, so that that committee would have a quorum.
About a year ago in Hamilton I was engaged in a debate regarding the C.B.C. The gentleman on the other side of the debate was one of these producers. He emphasized to the audience at McMaster University in no uncertain terms that I took such little interest in radio and TV that I read a newspaper all the time he was giving his evidence before the committee. I am glad he noticed that. I had been dragged there to make a quorum, but I had said that I would not listen to a producer attacking the management. I believe in the responsibility of management to the responsible head of the department. The responsible head of that department is the Secretary of State. Following that line of conviction and reasoning, the

DEBATES	November 8, 1967
hired hands are responsible to the Secretary of State. I am with her 100 per cent. I do not like the newspaper headings such as "Judy LaMarsh Stands Alone". Judy LaMarsh has a precedent in the former minister of national defence, and is on firm and solid ground in the action she has taken.
I have a large number of thoughts I should like to express in respect of the Broadcasting Act, but first I wish to mention the absolute impotence of individual members of parliament. They do not account for anything. It does not matter whether the private member is on the so-called government side or on the opposition side of the house; I have been a member of this house for a little better than five years now and I know whereof I speak. Private members of parliament are asked nothing and told nothing. Nothing is expected of them, except to be here to vote in accordance with the wishes of the cabinet, no matter what those wishes may be.
But, let us take the broadcasting bill. I am a member of the broadcasting committee; I am interested in broadcasting and radio. I never saw the bill, of course, until it was placed on my desk in my absence, and in the absence of other members of this house who had taken part in some provincial elections. When we returned, a copy of the bill was on our desks. We are expected to support the bill, because if we do not the government might fall and that would be a fate worse than death for the Dominion of Canada. I cannot agree that it would be a fate worse than death, because I feel that parliament is suffering fates worse than death because parliament does not govern this country any more; the cabinet does.
The blighters sitting behind and to the right and left of the cabinet are supposed to raise their hands even if they have never seen the bill before. They are supposed to support it, and it is expected that the opposition will cause only trouble. I am of the opinion that members of parliament are intelligent men. They were not sent down here by the constituents whom they represent to look like bumps on a log. The private members to the right of Mr. Speaker are supposed to support the action of the cabinet, and the members to the left of Mr. Speaker are supposed to raise objection. There are intelligent men on both sides of the house and among the private members. The consensus of the entire parliament should become the laws of the land, and not what cabinet brings down and says we should support because it is the considered opinion of the cabinet.
November 8, 1967

I remember the immigration committee a year or so ago on the occasion when the immigration white paper came down. I was a member of the Liberal immigration group which met quite frequently with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) and his deputy. The night before the white paper was brought down there was a very interesting and intelligent meeting held in the minister's office. I can remember a recently elected member of the Liberal party at that meeting asked in a rather plaintive way, "may we see the white paper before it is produced in parliament?", and the laughter of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who himself had been in the house about a year and a half, and the laughter of the deputy minister of immigration was very interesting to behold. To think that a newly elected member of parliament should ask to see the contents of a white paper before it was put before members of the House of Commons, with the indication that those of us sitting to the right of the Speaker would have to endorse that white paper, was astounding.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am limited to half an hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the hon. member say that the deputy minister of manpower and immigration was at a meeting of the Liberal caucus?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I did not say "caucus"; I said it was a Liberal study group on immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's just another name for it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Those are your words, not mine. I should like to read some of the expressions of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) in her introductory speech on second reading. At page 3746, referring to the broadcast committee, she said:
Because this was indeed a committee free of narrow partisanship-
If these committees are "free of narrow partisanship", why is there always a majority of supporters from the right of the Speaker on the committee? In the case of this committee we had 25 members and 13 of them were Liberals. Why is it that if a Liberal is going to be away for one reason or another we have him replaced by another Liberal, and if a Social Credit member is

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting going to be away he is replaced by a member of the Social Credit party? Is this done to show there is no narrow partisanship on the part of the committee? The membership is engineered from the start to the finish.
We are told by the Secretary of State that the report of this committee was very valuable. I have a copy of the report of the committee here in my hand and I have a copy of the white paper. There were 21 paragraphs in the white paper, and the committee concurred in 19. One can see the heavy additional thought we gave to the white paper, which came out of the everywhere into here. The two paragraphs that we did not concur in had to do first with educational television, and we suggested there be a delay in considering it, and one made some complimentary reference to the Fowler commission, which was past history. We simply approved of the historical reference. We had 19 concurrences in respect of 21 suggestions in the white paper.
If we read on in Hansard we find a reference by the Secretary of State to the effect that the bill in front of us is what the government intended should be before us. It is interesting to know that the bill was coming down, no matter what the committee action might have been in connection with the white paper.
Let me draw your attention to the speech of the Secretary of State on November 1 and pick out the "we's" in it. In the second paragraph it says, "we" have been formulating this bill. You might think that the "we" is the Liberal caucus. I can tell you that it was never discussed by the Liberal caucus. You might think that the "we" is the Liberal party. It was never discussed by the Liberal party. The "we" is the cabinet, and I presume means the majority of the Liberal cabinet. That does not necessarily mean 25 people; it could be 13 or 14.
Then we have reference again on page 3746 to this effect, that the committee's report was particularly valuable to "us". The "us" would again be the cabinet. On page 3747 there is a reference to all these sources of individuals and groups who have given "us" their views. The Secretary of State then says "we" have arrived at a consensus. She refers again to "we" and "us".
Then we go on and find a further reference about the agreed upon principles as a starting point. They were agreed upon by whom? They were certainly not agreed upon by the caucus and not agreed upon by the Liberal party,-but they were ageed upon.
November 8, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Then on page 3747 the Secretary of State says:
-we have tried in this bill to carry each of them through-
Further on she says "we reached", and "we believe", and that this "we believe" will permit implementation of the standing committee's wishes in this regard. Then on page 3752 we read:
-Mr. Speaker, we searched for a name which would best represent-
Again on page 3752 we have another reference to we. The Secretary of State said:
Although the white paper proposed that there should be seven part time members and the standing committee recommended six, we have now on more mature consideration-
Apparently that is a back-handed compliment to the standing committee because she says:
-we have now on more mature consideration come to the conclusion that so small a number of part time members would not be sufficient to provide proper representation of public interests. It is therefore proposed in this bill that there should be ten part time members of the commission-
If we carry on reading we find at page 3756 the word "we" referred to several times. The minister says "we" have arrived at a consensus, and "we" hope the bill will be endorsed. Why cannot these people say who "we" are, instead of creating the impression that the Liberal caucus has agreed upon this or the Liberal party has agreed upon that, and let it be known that it is the cabinet that has agreed upon it.
At the very end of the Secretary of State's remarks in the very last paragraph she says that having all these things in mind she recommends this legislation to the favourable consideration of hon. members. I wonder why she asks us for favourable consideration. She has told us what "we" are going to do, what "we" have done and what "we" want. She has told us what "we" think is in the interests of the nation. I suggest to you that there was no need to ask for favourable consideration of hon. members.
I have picked out some of the "we's" to show you who is formulating the policy that we are asked to endorse. I have picked out references to what "we" are going to do. For instance, at page 3748 there is no suggestion that the cabinet is asking parliament to endorse this, or the cabinet is asking parliament to vote on the question.

We have a reference at page 3748 as follows:
The prohibition of political broadcasts immediately before elections is to be continued, with some modifications, and the commission will be empowered-
This is stated before the bill is voted upon. Surely the cabinet could ask us to empower the commission to do this. But, no, we are told it is going to be empowered. Again at page 3748 it is stated:
-the commission will have to take fully into account-
We are being told in advance what is to be, and we are told in advance what is going to be done; and we are given to understand that if we do not support the cabinet we are likely to have an election.
We then see at page 3748:
The conditions of license will also be used-
It does not say anything about the cabinet believing that the conditions of license should be such and such, expressing the trust and that parliament will endorse this belief. No, we are told to stand and deliver-and one has to stand up to vote in this parliament. Stand and deliver is the only way.
Again at page 3748 we find the statement that "we" will have a great deal more flexibility. They certainly will, if this bill is passed. Again at page 3748 we have reference to the fact that the commission will do this and that, further reference to the fact that the commission "will be required", "will be granted", and again "will be required", and "will be subject to", and so on and so forth. It suggests that such and such "will also be laid down", "will have to", "will be empowered" and "will be governed".
There is no evidence to show that the cabinet ever thinks of asking the elected representatives of the people to consider their suggestions favourably. Oh, no, they just write the bill and then tell the dumb private members to support it, or they will have to face an election. I believe members of parliament were elected to parliament to express here in Ottawa what their constituents want to see done. They are not sent down here to act like dumb bunnies endorsing the thoughts of a few people who have been called to the cabinet, e (4:00 p.m.)
I am unable to endorse the principle of this bill. I cannot endorse it when I consider the way these bills are introduced into parliament, without members knowing anything about them. If you look at the debate on the
November 8, 1967

resolution on Tuesday, October 17, you will find it very interesting to read the comments in Hansard of various members of the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said:
-and, as the previous speaker mentioned, we are dealing here in generalities and not until the resolution stage is completed will we have the bill and see the new legislation in which we are all very interested.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), the chairman of the committee, said as reported at page 3185 of Hansard:
-in the bill which the Secretary of State will be revealing to us shortly.
I emphasize the word "revealing". Then we have the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), a member of the committee, on page 3187 expressing the hope that there will be in the bill things which are as yet unseen. The hon. member said:
The legislation that we are to see introduced today has been a long time in coming, and I commend the minister for resisting the pressures of recent months and, indeed, even of years, to speed up the introduction of the legislation because I hope that the document we will see unveiled at the end of the debate on the resolution will be a comprehensive effort-
I know that my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to refer in detail to the community antennae television features of this measure. The community antennae industry is a growing one in the United States and Canada and it is going to be hit if part IV of this bill is passed in its present wording. Community antennae television is the fastest growing segment of the radio and television world today. I say that this bill negates the principle of the right of a people to view the programs of their choice. We make great fuss and palaver over the fact that we have the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of speech, right of a free press and the right to freedom of religion. The four freedoms are extolled from time to time. If we have freedom of speech, surely the corollary is that we have freedom to listen. Twice when introducing this bill the Secretary of State referred to the great freedom of expression that is given to people on the air. In fact at one place it was said that this freedom must not be curtailed.
What is the use of having freedom of expression if audiences are prohibited from listening to you or, in the case of television, from viewing you? In the case of C.A.T.V. it does not in any manner make use of radio frequencies; it is nothing but a receiving

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting operation from start to finish. I have read the definitions in the first part of the bill. Members can read them for themselves on page 3 of the bill under "Interpretation". We find these words in paragraph (d):
-"broadcasting undertaking" includes a broadcasting transmitting undertaking, a broadcasting receiving undertaking-
Nowhere can I find a definition of what a broadcasting receiving undertaking is, but we have been told that regulations will be framed by the commission to be appointed covering broadcasting receiving undertakings. If we were ever asked to vote a blank cheque, I can tell you that this is a duplicate, because this is a blank cheque in every manner, shape and form.
Why should parliament, consisting of duly elected representatives of the people, be asked to confer upon a commission as yet unnamed and unformed the power to create regulations which will bring C.A.T.V. receivers under broadcasting regulations? The reason they want these receiving sets under regulation is so that the viewing audiences of television stations in Canada will not be decimated by those who do not want to look at a certain television station, but at a station coming over cable television.
I have in my hand a statement on community antennae television broadcasting by the former minister of transport, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who has been transported, or I should say translated, to other fields of effort, and by Hon. Maurice Lamontagne, then secretary of state, dated July 22, 1964. In this mimeographed statement-by the way, no action was taken on it-it is said:
Proposed item re C.A.T.V. receiving stations to be included in supplementary estimates.
This is why they want C.A.T.V. brought under discipline and licence. This statement says:
-that the specification therein of that broadcasting station is unlikely to result in the operation of any existing television broadcasting station in Canada serving the area served or to be served by the licensed station becoming uneconomic or to inhibit the establishment of ultimate television broadcasting facilities in Canada serving that area-
Why should the parliament of Canada worry whether individual television stations are going to make a profit? We pay lip service to the idea of free enterprise, but when it comes to television stations we are told: We are going to try to keep C.A.T.V. out of your place. The most glaring example of the way the public will turn to C.A.T.V. in preference to watching television station programs
November 8, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting they do not like, is Port Arthur. It is estimated that there are around Port Arthur 24,000 television homes, more than half of which have C.A.T.V. receiving antennae. They pay a television cable company to bring them television service from Duluth, Superior, and Marquette. More than one half of the people around Port Arthur pay money each month to watch those television stations. It is quite a comment that television set owners around Port Arthur, which has quite a bit of C.B.C. programming, pay money to view outside programs.
In Toronto, if you have a private home and an antenna you can bring in Buffalo on television. The cabinet says: You should not look at an American station, if you look at an American station you will reduce the size of the Canadian station audience. However, the people in the area are interested in looking at television programs from Buffalo and Rochester.
So we have in this bill a move to bring C.A.T.V. under regulation. The new commission will simply say to C.A.T.V.: If we give you a licence, people will watch television stations other than those in the area, and those in the area do not want their audience decimated by competition.
Do we ever hear the government of Canada saying to television and radio stations: You must not go in there; you will be taking away advertising from the local newspapers or magazines? No. The government gives no protection to the printed word, but for some reason they seem to think that a radio or television station has to be protected from the competition offered by other stations which can be brought in.
C.A.T.V. does not make any use of radio frequencies It does not violate any publicly owned radio frequencies. It is simply a receiving system, and receives programs already being broadcast. If a man, woman or child wants to look at a different station from the one in their own home town, what right has the government to tell them otherwise? If we pass this bill in its present form, pretty soon we will be telling the people: You cannot read an American magazine; you have to read Maclean's or other Canadian periodicals. The cabinet will handle this in the same way that they handle Canadian content on television now, and will tell the people that they should not read or look at anything that is not Canadian.
Yet we had in the speech of the Secretary of State the statement that the government believes in freedom of expression. If they

believe in freedom of expression why do they not believe in freedom of receipt of these various expressions? If a person has a wonderful idea and is broadcasting it on a television station, and C.A.T.V. is forbidden to bring that station in, what is the use of that man talking? He might as well go and holler down a rain barrel. This will be the situation if C.A.T.V. stations are subject to government licence and the government says: You cannot bring in that station on that channel; we want you to bring in as many Canadian stations as your system will reach, and if you want to bring in something foreign, you cannot do this.
On most of the C.A.T.V. systems you can bring in seven channels, and on a few you can bring in 12 channels. I know of no reason why C.A.T.V. should be told which stations they have to bring in, if there is a multiplicity of selection. There is some comment that CA.T.V. is going to be the television of the future. I have a cartoon upstairs -I asked the Toronto Star to send me the original some time ago-relating to all the flap at the time when we welcomed the king of Siam, the emir of Afghanistan, the king of Ruritania and other such dignitaries. The picture shows Mr. Taxpayer, a poor fellow with no seat in his pants and a threadbare coat, looking at the coach and four coming out the front gate of the parliament buildings grounds, and remarking to another Ottawa passerby "They keep themselves awful busy in Ottawa keeping up with yesterday".
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am telling you, the radio and television world in the next ten years will be unrecognizable from today because cable television will dominate the field. Then if you want to get a certain type of music, you will be able to press a button in your home and cable television will bring you the type of music you want, not the type of music that the disc jockey on the radio or television station thinks you want at that hour. If you have children and they want to look at a science fiction program, they will press a button on their set and they will be able to get it, because the family will be able to choose from among five or six continuous programs on the same theme. The family will not have to be told to wait until nine o'clock, when the program they want to see is scheduled. A library of films will be available on cable television and you will be able to get the type of educational program or travelogue you wish to see at the time you want. You will be free and you will not have to upset
November 8, 1967

the entire routine of your life in order to catch a certain program at a certain time, if you are that interested in the programming.
For example, let me illustrate how busy we are keeping up with yesterday. At page 3, clause 3(j) of the bill which is before us reference is made to electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3,000 gigacycles. What a word that is. I wonder when this bill was written, because that word is no longer used in the nomenclature of radio and television. The word used today is "gigahertz" and that has been the established expression for some years. I refer to this simply as an indication of how busy we are keeping up with yesterday.
We speak about the great radio and television world of the future. This bill makes practically no reference to it, other than that the commission will license C.A.T.V. and try to make people watch Canadian productions, whether they wish to look at them or not. In my view this interferes with the freedom of individuals, to choose and on that basis alone I cannot support the bill, let alone the manner in which it has been produced.
I sincerely hope that what I say now may have some effect on the introduction of bills in the future. I believe the representatives of the people should be consulted before bills are brought in. I do not for one moment believe that all the wisdom of Canada resides in the brains of the 25 people in the cabinet. I think the people of Canada have ability, and I think their ability should be recognized and the products of their thinking should be used. I would like to see the government of Canada returned to the parliament of the people, and not be allowed to continue on in the hands of a cabinet which does not consult the representatives of the people. There are representatives of the people in Ottawa but they are not asked a thing.
I hope I will not have to repeat the same remarks when the Post Office bill comes down. I have spent 40 years of my life in the publishing business and I am conceited enough to think I know something about it. I have had a great number of phone calls, telegrams and personal visits from newspaper and magazine publishers in Canada asking me about the new Post Office act, what is in it and what the second class rate will be. I say to them, "My friends, why are you asking me, I am only a private member of parliament. Where did you get the idea I would know what is in the Post Office bill? You will probably know before me, because if it is introduced at night it will reach you
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting over the Canadian Press wire service and I will be able to read about it in the morning paper". I think it is an absolute denial of democracy to have the cabinet do all the heavy thinking, as they are doing in their opinion, and then produce it here and ask private members to vote for it or the government will fall, and that that is a fate worse than death. I do not agree with this. I simply ask the cabinet: In the name of heaven, can you not consult the representatives of the people, who have spent money to espouse Liberal principles and to show they are in favour of them?-and then when they get here, at some expense, which is not covered by the party, they are ignored completely. It is about time that this country, my beloved Canada, was governed by the representatives of the people and not by 25 hand picked souls.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I know that we are late in this debate but I think it has been a most interesting and constructive one and has shown, in a way that nothing else would, a concerned and aroused nation. The debate in this past week has had a different mood and temper to it than might have obtained had it been held a year ago. In fact if we recall the early days of the committee hearings into what is known as the "Seven Days" crisis, those who felt there was something wrong with the C.B.C. at a variety of levels were in a very small minority for far too long a time. But as the debate has shown, the situation has changed.
The bill deals with programming to a large extent and with housekeeping to an even larger extent. It proposes the setting up of a Canadian radio commission, which I suspect will be too busy with the housekeeping to spend much time keeping an eye on the programming. I hope that the name, "Canadian Radio Commission", will be changed. I know the government can talk about gold mining assistance without any reference to the international monetary situation, but I do not think it can choose a name for a commission which will govern television without having the word "television" included in the name. I suggested a change in name very strongly at the committee meetings but my suggestion was not taken up in the report of the committee. However, I am happy to see that it is mentioned in the legislation.
November 8, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting I feel that there is a very serious lack in the bill that is before us, in fact a crucial one. On page 2, clause 2(d), we find that the commission is charged with providing a reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy. This has been one of the touchiest points in the whole controversy over the C.B.C. I feel that this provision does not go far enough to protect us against the sort of things that have already happened. There are areas of public controversy where we cannot be reasonable because the threat to democracy and to the nation is too great. I should like to quote Sir Hugh Greene from "The Conscience of the Programme Director" where he stated the following:
-there are some respects-
He was speaking of the B.B.C.
-in which it is not neutral, unbiased or impartial. That is, where there are clashes for and against the basic moral values-truthfulness, justice, freedom, compassion, tolerance.
Nor do I believe that we should be impartial about certain things like racialism, or extreme forms of political belief. Being too good 'democrats' in these matters could open the way to the destruction of democracy itself. I believe a healthy democracy does not evade decisions about what it can never allow if it is to survive.
The actions and aspirations of those who proclaim some political and social ideas are so clearly damaging to society, to peace and good order, even in their immediate effects, that to put at their disposal the enormous power of broadcasting would be to conspire with them against society.
This is what I am concerned about in the bill and I hope that in discussing it in committee we can write in an amendment which would state that the power of this public institution is not to be turned over to those who would conspire against democracy, because in recent times we have come close to that great danger. We have heard from some speakers in this debate that surely Canadian democracy is such a sturdy growth that no such danger can arise and that it can withstand the shock of what is called "free discussion". However, I prefer the description of democracy given by Jacques Ellul in his book "Political Illusion", where he says:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It should have been clear that any political order based on values was an infinitely fragile thing, a rather astonishing human achievement, and one that had to be maintained by will-power, sacrifice, and constant renewal.
I believe that this statement applies, and it applies to legislation that we introduce in [Mr. Johnston.)
connection with broadcasting, public or private, in Canada, but particularly to the public sector because of the way in which the public have been asked to conspire against themselves.
I know some of our members in this debate have argued that we can allow a great deal of latitude. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), speaking of Mr. Levesque said, as recorded on page 3893 of Hansard for November 3:
I believe, however, that it would be a travesty of freedom of speech if Mr. Levesque did not receive an opportunity to express his views to the Canadian people. Only a sense of insecurity and a lack of confidence in the people of Canada would prompt one to suggest that the expression of that opinion would do Canadian unity harm. I have greater confidence than that.
The hon. member also has a blind eye because some of us remember an occasion when there was a threat to Canadian peace from the extreme right. There was a proposal that an interview with Mr. von Thadden be aired and the same member, speaking before a great assembly in Toronto, was bitterly critical of the C.B.C. for interviewing him. I agreed with him entirely. However, after a few months time, when we find the threat coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum, the hon. member indicates we can afford somehow to be more generous, and to be generous to the point of allowing the use of public facilities for a purpose leading to the destruction of our own national unity.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that when this type of broadcasting is done, whether it is done in the name of news or in the name of political affairs, we should know what it is all about. We are told that the justification for this sort of thing which we saw in the program "Seven Days" and later in the program "Sunday", is the basic right of the people to know. This is the justification for presenting anything at all over the airways of the public. However, I believe that what we are involved in there is a form of propaganda, and one that we should recognize as propaganda of agitation. I should like to go back to Mr. Ellul who has a great many important things to say on the subject of democracy in government, and even broadcasting, in his two recent books. Speaking of propaganda of agitation, he said:
Propaganda of agitation, being the most visible and widespread, generally attracts all the attention. It is most often subversive propaganda and has the stamp of opposition. It is led by a party seeking to destroy the government or the established order. It seeks rebellion or war. It has always had a place in the course of history. All revolutionary movements, all popular wars have been nourished by such propaganda of agitation.
November 8, 1967

We have had some splendid examples of propaganda of agitation being used. There is no need for me to recount many of them here. I should like to feel that this is indeed an extreme statement of the position, but as a further clear example of how closely the C.B.C. itself has been involved in propaganda of agitation, I should like for the benefit of members to refer to excerpts from the program "Panorama" of Eurovision, televised on July 18, 1966 from Bonn, Prague, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Brussells, Oslo, Helsinki and Vienna. Lotha Loewe described C.B.C.'s "This Hour Has Seven Days" as, "a highly political T.V. magazine which led to the crisis between the 'Seven Days' staff and management."
It has been agreed, Mr. Speaker, that we should keep politics out of the C.B.C. Let us recognize also the importance of keeping the C.B.C. out of politics. Let me acquaint this house with the comments of Mr. Douglas Leiterman, who appeared in a very prominent position during the inquiry. The Bonn television station produced a summary of this Leiterman program of July 18, 1966, which concluded as follows:
Asked whether he thought that the program would be cancelled now for good he said no, repeat no, he didn't think so. As soon as there would be change in government there would also be a change of the top of C.B.C., and as soon as other people were making the policy of the station, the program would stand at least another year.
Democracy has not achieved that sturdy a growth that we can allow it to be suborned by the use of public funds. There are people here who will be bitterly critical of what I say, and they will be critical in the name of the highest idealism. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that a considerable amount of the debate has been misguided. I should like to go back again to Mr. Ellul's remarks, where he says:
Only at the very last minute do the idealists grab hold of themselves and call a halt, which is then terribly costly and bloody because none of the measures that a clear understanding of the autonomy of political matters should have necessitated was taken in time.
I would hope that with the results of the past year, the controversy and the concern of the Canadian people so clearly expressed, some initial steps might still be taken to provice the sort of control that would prevent the turning over of the public broadcasting corporation to these people. Economics prevent the private sector from being turned over, but the public sector does not operate in the same way. I hope that as we study the bill we will write in a warning that
Division
the use of the corporation should not be turned over to those who would destroy us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Or-miston). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division and bill read the second time.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That the said bill be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]

Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, if I may at this time direct a question to the government house leader, I wish to ask him what the house will be considering tomorrow and Friday.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin the second reading of the capital punishment bill, and possibly carry it on on Friday, but I would like to discuss tomorrow with the house leaders whether we ought not to alter the business for Friday.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



MOTHERS ALLOWANCES


Winona Grace MacInnis: That, in the opinion of this house, as a measure to promote the development of family life in Canada and to prevent its erosion, where a mother chooses to make a full time career of motherhood by remaining at home instead of taking gainful employment outside, the government should consider the advisability of providing such a mother with an allowance to enable her to fulfil this service to Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, there is a growing concern in Canada these days about the way in which the pressures of industrialization and urbanization are threatening the Canadian family. It is not my intention to belabour this particular point, because I think we are very familiar with it because of what we have read in the newspapers and magazines, from what we have heard over the air, and so on.
Possibly the most concrete expression of this concern has been the setting up, within recent months, of the Vanier Institute of the Family by our much beloved late Governor General and his equally famous and beloved wife, Madam Vanier. This institute of the family will be devoting its efforts to inquiring into circumstances which make family life what it should be and also circumstances, I understand, which militate against good solid family life in cases where it breaks down. I think there is no lack of evidence that people are concerned about the need to do everything possible to protect family life
November 8, 1967

Mothers Allowances
in this country. Just this afternoon, along with every other member of this house, I received a document from Montreal written in French. It is from two fathers of families -one who, I believe, has four children and the other five-who are concerned with difficulties of family life and who offer as their particular centennial solution a program under which each family would be enabled to have a house all to itself. This pressure of housing is one expression of the way in which our urban life is threatening the family.
Not the least of the pressures on family life now is occasioned by the tremendous industrialization of our country, automation, and the way in which larger and larger numbers of mothers are going outside the home to work. In my opinion every woman should have the right to decide whether she is to work in her own home, outside it, or engage in a combination of the two. Some women today are in a position to exercise that right very much more fully than others. In general I believe it is true to say that most women who engage in business, professional work or in a great many other kinds of work such as educational employment, are unable to afford to employ housekeepers or baby sitters, or to send their children to private nursery schools. When they are in a position to do this I believe there is no real neglect of the family. The woman can go to her work with an easy mind knowing that the children will not be neglected, at least in so far as their material comforts and needs are concerned.
I believe it is always a good thing when a mother of a young family is able to stay home, because I do not regard the work of a mother to be limited only to feeding, clothing and looking after the material needs of the children. Having grown up in a home where a mother devoted her entire energies to her six children and devoted a good deal of her time to inculcating in them personal habits, and particularly habits pertaining to their relations with other people, I believe the work of a mother does not stop with the mere business of keeping her children clean, fed and healthy. I think it goes far beyond that. However, I do not believe a mother is neglecting the family, within the ordinary sense, when she goes out to work when her children are being looked after while she is away.
What about the thousands of mothers of young children who are the sole support of their families? I think of the widows, women who are separated, deserted wives and
divorced women. They all have young children and make up a very large percentage of the women in this country. In addition to the women I have mentioned who are the sole support of their families, what about the mother who must add her pay cheque to that of her husband if the family is to have a modern standard of living? The other day I read an item which appeared in the paper to the effect that in the United States, where conditions are very similar to those in Canada, the women's bureau is greatly concerned about the large number of women who appear on the labour force in the month of September. Esther Peterson, assistant secretary of labor says unequivocably that the increase in the cost of living has in very great measure been responsible for these mothers of young families having to go into the labour market in such large numbers. She is concerned about it, as is the director of the labour bureau of the United States.
What is the choice which faces such women? Really it is a choice between a pay cheque or poverty in the home. It is not a matter of downright starvation, but it is poverty; it is not a modern standard of living. It is one to which she is reluctant to see her children exposed. In cases where the mother must go out to work without proper provision being made for her children, it is the children who get caught in the crunch. I am all in favour of a system of child care centres. I believe this is one of the greatest needs we have in this country, and I have said this in the house on a number of occasions. But, let us face the facts; we do not have any such system at the present time. These great groups of women whom I have mentioned are faced with the choice of either going out to work and leaving their children neglected or staying home and facing a very thin type of life for their families.
A wide sampling was taken recently in the schools of Ottawa. This was done in three different income areas of the city. This sampling brought out the fact that in this capital city of ours one child out of every 1,000 children who is in urgent need of a child care centre can get such care. In Ottawa one child out of every 1,000 who needs child care or nursery care is able to get it. I think this must have a very serious effect on the Canadian family.
We speak of the importance of protecting Canadians against various types of hazard and about the importance of increasing production in order to keep the people of this country well and strong. On the other hand,

November 8, 1967
Mothers Allowances
if a situation is to prevail where there is no protection except the most sketchy and most unsatisfactory kind of arrangement that can be made, then I believe we are neglecting one of our greatest resources in a most serious way.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That is why I have brought forward the resolution Mr. Speaker read. It is not a resolution which would protect and provide allowances for all married women. It is not a resolution which would provide allowances just because women are homemakers or housekeepers. It is not even a resolution which would provide an allowance for women just because they are mothers. This resolution would provide allowances only for those mothers who decide not to take paid work outside the home, but who want to stay at home and make a full time career of motherhood, and the task of bringing up their families. This allowance would give recognition to the fact that we consider this an important service to the country, and would All the gap in our present arrangements for safeguarding the family.
It is noteworthy that last summer the director of the Canadian Welfare Council for Canada, Mr. Reuben Baetz, made the suggestion that there should be an allowance for all mothers who are the sole supporters of their families. Let me go further and suggest that this allowance be given to all mothers regardless of whether or not their husbands are working or whether or not they have husbands. This allowance should be given for their services as full time mothers.
I hope that no one in reply will make the charge that I want to give all this money to millionaires. I hope there is not one member here who does not know the purpose of income tax and how it should be used. We should use income tax much more effectively than we have done so far, and it should be used more stringently. We should adopt methods to recover these allowances, whether old age pensions, family allowances or otherwise from those wealthy people who do not need them. In this way we could provide these allowances to full time mothers. They should be given to women who make a full time career of motherhood. Some people might suggest that my idea is rather far out and belongs in the domain of cloud cuckoo-land. Let me dispel that idea by referring to a system that has been in effect in France for some time-and I might add that the women there are about as practical as they come.


I would like to read two paragraphs from Le Devoir of February 19, 1966 which briefly describe important points of this legislation, and I quote:
To encourage mothers to fulfill their role of educator at home, an allowance called single salary allowance is added in France to family allowances. It is paid whenever there is only a single pay cheek in the family, either because the woman is not working or in cases of divorce, separation or widowhood, or even for the unmarried mothers.
In a family of four children, assistance thus paid amounts to 390NF or approximately $78 per month, which is slightly above the minimum guaranteed wage in that country. It is $30 for two children and $56 for three children. Beyond four children, the mother receives $20 for each additional child. Increases apply to children over ten years old and over 15 years old, and the allowances are paid to age 20 in cases of extended studies or apprenticeship.

So, there we have it. They have these allowances there.

It seems that France has reached the point where society recognizes sufficiently the services of a mother to help her financially. Here, we heap praises and compliments on her, but only on Mother's Day. The rest of the year, we leave her to fight alone against the cruel hazards of life.

In case I have not made myself clear, I should like to underline again in my native language my belief that we must accept the idea of family life and the promotion of health in family life as a positive need and as a top priority, as they do in France, for mothers who instead of going out to work devote their energies, talents and abilities to making sound families and looking after the manners, morals, welfare and habits of their children. In doing so they perform a tremendous job.
I think we should make it easier for mothers to carry out this task, and we certainly should recognize this as a service. By providing such allowances we would add to the status of motherhood to a much greater extent than can be expected from the little gifts of flowers and other things these women receive on Mother's Day. Such an expenditure would be well worth while. It is no longer good enough to suggest to families that they sink or swim alone. We can no longer suggest that they will prove that they have what it takes if they can withstand
November 8, 1967

poverty, it their children can stand up to being badly clothed, badly fed and the taunt-ings and sneers of the other children. That is not good enough in the kind of society we live in. Today we sink or swim together.
Today we must protect the family or accept the consequences of broken homes and badly behaved children, not only at home but in the community where their behaviour is a very serious thing, particularly in later years as adults.
Let me quote from a letter written by a widow who moved to British Columbia when her husband died. She says:
Our three years here have been a triumph over circumstances in many ways, in that I have proven wrong all those who maintained it could not be done. I have worked day and night to keep my family together and have often wondered if I have not paid too high a price-if the whole family structure has not been too weakened simply because I must spread myself too thinly. I have tried everything I know to supplement a welcome but inadequate pay check and it is never enough. My children are inadequately clothed and often inadequately fed. I don't know what a new dress for myself looks like-all of my clothes have been passed on by relatives. I've tried door to door selling when I was already tired, discouraged and often half ill. For some time now I have been a civil servant by day, and a licensed private detective by night. Even this extra work is spasmodic and I never know how many hours work I can expect. I cannot let my night work interfere with my regular job and am thus limited in what I can do.
Please do not misunderstand me-I enjoy all of my work and am stimulated by it-yet I am also aware that it is too much to expect of any woman.
What a life to expect of any woman. I do not think we should permit this thing to on, and I do not think we can afford to allow it to continue. I have purposely taken the case of this woman because she is obviously resourceful, strong, resolute and with many assets. What of the many mothers across this country who are much less well endowed or able to stand up to difficulties? I do not think we can afford anything less than an assist through a procedure such as is suggested in this notice of motion, with a view to family security.
Until the recent economy drive on the part of the government we were prepared to spend $100 millions for a defence establishment here in Ottawa-a Canadian pentagon. I suppose this would have been built over the protests of some of us, in spite of the fact we are told that today there is basically no defence, in the Anal analysis, against the weapons of modern warfare. In my view that would be an expenditure subject to question,
Mothers Allowances
and I am certainly glad to see that the economy axe has fallen there.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We are spending on family allowances for all the families in Canada only slightly more than five times as much as that large defence establishment, which I wish I could say was scrapped. I hope the matter of paying an allowance to full time mothers will be investigated by the royal commission on the status of women that is now preparing to hold sessions. I believe it is well worth their investigation.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the government to give really serious consideration to my proposal. If we are serious in this country about urging mothers to make a full time job of motherhood, and we really want the family safeguarded and protected, I think it would be a good idea that where a woman chooses to go out to work she should have the right to make that choice, but that where she chooses to stay at home she be helped in order to carry out a job which I think is one of the top jobs for women in this country.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question or two, if I may. Does she think that married women with families should be given jobs in factories.


Winona Grace MacInnis: As
I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I think it is the right of a woman to choose whether she shall work inside her home, whether she shall work outside or whether she shall work at a combination of both. But I suggest that we will not pass a law saying that no woman shall be given a job in a factory. If we want women to protect the home, then the way to do it, beyond any doubt in my mind, is to give them a salary for so doing. I think that faced with this situation a very great number of women would choose to stay home rather than be mentally and physically torn in pieces trying to do one job outside the home and coming home and trying to do another.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have one more question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order,
please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to the hon. lady has expired.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I wonder whether the hon. lady would accept one more question. Does she not agree that if married women were home

November 8, 1967
Mothers Allowances
looking after their families we would not be in the serious trouble we are today, so far as unemployment is concerned? Does the hon. lady not think that in that situation we would not have the unemployment that we have today?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can turn the clock back. Women are going to work outside the home, whether we like it or not.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my observations I should like to read the motion which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has put before the house. It is as follows:
That, in the opinion ol this house, as a measure to promote the development of family life in Canada and to prevent its erosion, where a mother chooses to make a full time career of motherhood by remaining at home instead of taking gainful employment outside, the government should consider the advisability of providing such a mother with an allowance to enable her to fulfil this service to Canada.
That is certainly a laudable expression. However, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. member who made that statement is the same hon. member who is reported to have said in committee, in defence of her bill which would provide for legalized abortion:
I think it is time we began to work toward quality population.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also said at that time:
We are beginning to hear about the need for improving population.
In answer to a question from an hon. member, the hon. lady said:
The community, in my view, has an interest in normal human begins and getting the best quality and kind of people it can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I note that hon. members are applauding that statement. If we are beginning a breeding line, perhaps this motion is the one best suited to fulfil that role. I cannot agree with the hon. member that it is administratively possible and practical to establish an income for a woman in the home based upon whether the husband has a suitable income. This would of course require a means test, and it would unquestionably be administratively impractical, if not impossible.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not propose thta this allowance should be

set up on the income of the husband. I proposed that it be set up if the mother decided to stay at home and look after the family instead of going out and earning a salary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If a mother decided to stay at home and look after her family, is it not conceivable that she would have made this decision based upon the amount of money the state was prepared to pay her for staying at home? Where would we draw the line in this respect? If we are going to pay only a token allowance, of course it makes no difference; but if we are going to pay an allowance to a mother to stay at home, surely it would have to be in the order of $50, $60 or $100 a month. Surely it is impractical to talk of working-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the French figure was $78 for a family with four children.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member has said that in France payments are made in the amount of 390 francs, or something like $68-


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is $78.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member said that these payments are made to mothers who remain at home to look after their families. She did not say whether the payment is made in the case of a widow looking after her family.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It
is paid to any woman.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has corrected me and says that the allowance is paid to any woman who is prepared to remain at home and look after her family. I am sure it would require considerable investigation to determine whether such a measure is practical and workable. In any event, we have in Canada made provision for assisting the married couple. Assistance is provided under a number of federal measures with a view to improving the quality of home life. I ask the hon. member to take note of that word "quality". But this assistance is provided to improve the quality of home life in Canada, and not that of the population at large. Under the personal income tax system there is a provision for an exemption of $1,000 on behalf of a married woman whose annual income does not exceed $250.
November 8, 1967

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Patterson:: That is a pitiful exemption.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Under the family and youth allowance programs, income support is provided for families with children up to the age of 17. In 1966-67 the total federal expenditures under these programs amounted to $621 million, the annual average family allowance payment per child amounted to $81.12, and the annual average payment per recipient under the youth allowances program amounted to $115.
The hon. member pointed out that we were prepared to spend $100 million for defence as of last year, and that this was only one fifth of what we are paying annually in family allowances. We heard the same sort of propaganda back in 1938 and 1939 from the leader of her party, who later was not even prepared to pay the cost of providing for the training of militia cadets in preparation for the defence of Canada. His views changed considerably as the war continued and as the Nazis began to ravage Europe.
The hon. member's proposal fails to specify whether such an allowance on behalf of mothers would be paid on a universal or an income test basis. Certainly the resolution does not specify it. If it were paid on a universal basis, the allowance would discriminate between those families with lower incomes and those with higher incomes, because each mother would receive the same amount. If it were paid on an income test basis, it would involve considerable administrative problems, and certainly that is an understatement. This is particularly true in view of the variability of incomes of many families which would be covered by such a program.
The proposal ignores the special income needs of families headed by women, such as widows, divorcees and women who are separated from their husbands. The hon. member has said that mothers should be encouraged to stay at home. She ignores the fact that welfare payments and widows allowances provide much more than was ever contemplated in France, or for that matter in any other country. Perhaps it is not sufficient to cover the needs, but the amount is remarkably above anything provided in any other countries the hon. member may have mentioned. In most instances, not only is the need for extra income greater than in the case of normal families, but the presence in the home of the mother is even more important for the development of family life.
Mothers Allowances
By its very nature, such a program of allowances for mothers would be open to abuse. Even with the elaborate and expensive administrative system which would be required, it would be extremely difficult to ensure that recipients did not in fact take up gainful employment outside the home.
Even with the very substantial increase in real family income in recent years, the participation of married women in the labour force has risen steadily. For example, between 1951 and 1961 the average weekly wages and salaries, in current dollars, for the industrial composite went up from $50.04 to $78.11, an increase of 56.1 per cent. When these amounts are adjusted by the 1949 consumer price index, the increase amounts to 37.4 per cent. At the same time between 1951 and 1961 the participation rate of married women in the labour force rose from 9.56 per cent to 18.47 per cent, or almost doubled. Thus it would appear questionable whether increasing family income through the payment of allowances to mothers, as proposed by the hon. member, would in fact have the desired effect.
Of necessity, such a program of allowances for mothers would be very expensive. If for example an allowance of $120 a year, which is only $10 a month, were paid to all husband and wife families, with children eligible to receive family allowances in 1961, the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $280 million a year. If we were to make it anything more than a token allowance, such as, say, $30 a month, this amount would approach $1 billion, or somewhat more than we are paying out in old age security. If we combined old age security with old age assistance, plus the supplemental allowance, the cost would be approximately $1 billion. While data from the 1966 census are not yet available, there is no doubt that the number of such families is much higher than it was in 1961. Thus the cost of such a program would be considerably greater than the figure cited earlier. In view of this, the adoption of the hon. member's proposal in the context of the current federal budgetary situation would hardly appear feasible.
The hon. member made reference to the Vanier institute of family life. I am sure the Vanier institute did not make any provision for legalized abortion. However, the document prepared by the institute is significant and important, and its recommendations should be studied carefully.

November 8, 1967
Mothers Allowances
It is true that there is a great lack of child day care nurseries, but let us consider how many family centres could be established simply by using the administrative money which would be required to carry out the hon. member's proposal. What do the truly socialized countries in Europe do in this respect? Family centres are found there in profusion. In the socialist Utopia it is the rule rather than the exception for mothers to be employed in such work as cleaning the streets, shovelling snow, laying tile, cobblestones-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deachman:: Working in the steel mills.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -or working in the steel mills, as the hon. member reminds me. I do not believe they work in the mines, but they do almost all of the arduous chores. I am not recommending this situation. However, when I tell a predominantly male audience about this situation in Russia, they are inclined to ask: Is that a situation which we should endeavour to bring about here? These are the facts of life in the socialist Utopia. There is no thought of people being able to make a decent living, beyond the poverty line, without two full incomes flowing in to the home. With these two incomes combined, they arrive at the princely sum of perhaps 200 or 250 rubles per month with which to make provision for a home in a land where prices range anywhere from one third higher to double the prices in North America.
The hon. member has the nucleus of an excellent idea. We are all in favour of motherhood; there is no question about it. We would all love to see motherhood on a pedestal. But after all let us be responsible people. At a time when we are facing one of the most serious inflationary periods in modern times, at least in the post-war years, and endeavouring to slow up government spending, it is proposed that we embark upon an expenditure which could range anywhere from $200 million to half a billion.
I believe we have the right to expect more responsibility from the members of the New Democratic party. We have a right to expect them to go along with the government in its endeavours to curtail inflation. I believe we have a right to expect some consideration from others, and some indication that they believe we feel just as strongly about the family, about motherhood and about the welfare of all the people in Canada as do the members of the New Democratic party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the important notice of motion given by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis).
We are pleased to deal with such questions because we know from the start that our economy cannot really meet the request of the hon. member. Were our economy even slightly reformed, it would be easy to distribute more to the nation and to encourage the family which is the very foundation of society.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find the means to protect society, and especially children so that society can regenerate itself, we will be ruined.
The family is the basis of any economy, any society. Without the family, there would probably be no communities, no provinces, no federal governments, no companies, no institutions. Institutions are born out of individuals, of self-renewing families. For our nation to prosper, it is absolutely necessary that our families continue to develop and evolve, that human beings continue to be born.
If we cannot even protect our Canadian mothers, who can we protect? Can we protect society, yes or no?
We are told that it is impossible, under the present system to find a means of compensating or helping mothers to take care of their children and their family. The first duty of a mother should be to stay at home to take care of her children. But, under the present system, mothers have to go to work outside and leave their children to the care of institutions during the day, in order to earn an additional income which will enable the family to survive. Mr. Speaker, this is not normal. According to the revenues actually shown in the Canada Year Book, production in 1967 reached $62 billion for a population of 20,400,000. This means an average of $15,000 per family of five and a monthly average of $1,250 per capita. If, with such wonderful averages, there are so many poor and insecure people, it is up to us to take care of them and to find a reason for this poor distribution of our great wealth. The following table shows the national productivity increase. In 1944, we had a revenue of $11,400 million; in 1967, we had a revenue of $62 billion. This is 5J times more.
November 8, 1967

Consumer spending increased from $10,120 million in 1944, to $4 billion in 1967, or four times as much.
In 1944, capitalization was $1,280 million; in 1967, it reached $22 billion, or 17 times as much. If capitalization in 1967 is 17 times as high as it was in 1944, something can certainly be done to provide families with a livelihood. If with a capitalization of $22 billion- 17 times as much as in 1944-Canadian families find it more difficult to make a living than before, we must ask ourselves what is wrong. There is certainly something wrong somewhere. I am not in favour of socializing all institutions. No. We should democratize them, and apply democracy in all its aspects. But the family is the very basis of society and we should respect it. If we have a capitalization of $22 billion and, in 1968, we may have an overproduction of about $24 or $25 billion, that overproduction costs nothing to the nation. The surplus products cost nothing. In 1944, our consumption amounted to $10 or $11 billion and, in 1967, it reaches $40 billion. We come finally to a difference of about $18 billion, but those $18 billion cost nothing to the nation and they could be distributed in the form of dividends, family allowances, welfare allowances, or whatever we want to call them. We could double or triple the rate of family allowances. We could increase the rate to a dollar a day per child, that is $30 a month. We could also give to the mother a salary of at least $60 a month. We could adjust to $120 a month all pensions, including old age security, allowances to the needy, in short anything you want. Furthermore, we could pay the students a salary of about $60 a month. All that program would cost about $8 billion. Everything that would come from the Social Credit, from society, would cost $8 billion, out of an $18 billion surplus.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be easy to find sources of revenue. We know where to find them when necessary but when we do not want to, they are left to capitalize. Such capitalization is financed with loans, it is in warehouses and stores and yields a rate of interest of 7 and 8 per cent. When it is time to increase the rate of interest to encourage big investors, there is no objection, everything is normal, but when it is time to encourage families, everything becomes irregular.
Mothers Allowances
We need fabulous sums, $80 million, $200 million or $300 million to assist family and Canadian institutions, to enable the very essence of human life to make greater progress and develop; it is impossible to find them.
Do we need funds to finance slaughter, destruction; there is no problem. We should understand once and for all. We should find solutions to enable individuals, families, children and women to develop and live normally in a country full of resources.
We have heaps of wheat; it is not natural that we should starve. That is the problem we should solve and many hon. members have trouble understanding that.
Until we find a way to distribute our production surplus, we will have unemployment. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the unemployed or people on welfare do not produce, they do not increase the gross national production. Many are on welfare because they are not entitled to unemployment insurance. There are presently many people who are taking advantage of the retraining program which is paid through our taxes. If all those people were at work and contributing to production, I believe the production in Canada could exceed $100 billions. If, in spite of all these people who are not working, we have succeeded in overproducing, due to technological development, let us be, at least, intelligent enough to distribute our surpluses to society.
All these surpluses must be distributed in the community and must benefit the families. Each family, each individual must have the right to live when the economy makes it possible.
The present state of the economy enables all Canadians to live easily, comfortably as long as we distribute the surplus of this production. Even though we may have large numbers of citizens who are not participating in the production because they are not working or have no jobs, it would be logical to find some day the means to distribute and divide the collective incomes of the entire population and to have each citizen, each family, each child benefit therefrom. We should consider a baby in a crib as more important than any financial system, any capitalization. If anyone should be protected, he is the one. He should be protected from the cradle to the

November 8. 1967
Mothers Allowances
grave; that is the way human beings should be taken care of.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. The totals announced following this afternoon's division of yeas 66 and nays 118 should be corrected to indicate that the total of nays was 119.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that include the vote of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: There is no record of that.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 9, 1967