1967-11-06

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, November 6, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. R. Cartwright, M.C., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on November 6, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. J. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



ONE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST SESSION OF FIRST PARLIAMENT

Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker we are marking a most important occasion in our history, the opening of the first session of the first parliament of Canada. To use a phrase from the Commons Journals of that day, this first sitting was "begun and holden" exactly a century ago today. The great Canadian parliamentary political debate began, the vigorous expression of free democracy which has continued to this moment, or to the moment that will shortly follow this one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Politics could be contentious in those days with a vigour of conflict both in debate and in election that would hardly be tolerated today. Indeed, there was proof of this in the fact that when the first sitting was opened on November 6, 1867, there already was a vacant seat in the house. The returning officer for Kamouraska had been unable to conduct the election in that constituency. "The hustings" which, in his words, "I had caused to be erected on the gallery of the sacristy" had been destroyed. He had himself been attacked by the mob
and had been told by a delegation that unless
he gave up the writs of election, his house would be demolished and he would be in danger of personal molestation.
The election was postponed.
But if politics was more lively in some areas in that confederation year, it was less so in others. Of the 181 seats in the commons for its first session, some 40 had been filled by acclamation. Perhaps one reason may have been that the sessional allowance for members was only $600.
Ottawa was a lively town for the occasion of that first opening. As some kind of portent, perhaps, of things to come the new capital had been hit by the worst windstorm in years a couple of days before the opening.


Mr. Knowles:: It has never stopped.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been blowing ever since. The sitting opened at the hour which has long since become the usual hour for the opening of new sessions, 3 p.m. The military were out in splendid ceremonial force; flags flew from public buildings and many private homes; all carriages coming to the hill for the event had to be here by 2.30 because at that time the gates were closed to all but the Governor General's.
But not everyone in the capital came up to the hill for the occasion. At 2 p.m. that day a lacrosse match was started in another part of the city and was reported to have been very well attended. The night before a group of visiting United States gymnasts and acrobats opened at Her Majesty's Theatre, where later in the week they were replaced on the bill by "The Fakir of Vishnu", a magician. The cynic might say that the character of the week's entertainment was not inappropriate to mark the parliamentary occasion. It was certainly appropriate that the great song of the day advertised by a local music store the day before the first sitting should be entitled "Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel".
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)
It was a momentous week, for earlier the till of a certain barroom had been robbed twice in three days; and the governor of the local jail had surprised a would-be
November 6, 1967
3906	COMMONS DEBATES
Anniversary of First Session of Parliament intruder-a weuld-be intruder at the jail- whom, according to a news report "He belabored with his blackthorn at a most unmerciful rate."
Less amusing, then or now, was the fact that in New York that week interest rates on call loans were 6 to 7 per cent, and discounts were 7 to 9 per cent. Railway shares were dropping, the stock market was unsettled, but government issues were "steady".
A sombre portent of critical things to come was noted on the eve of the opening by the Ottawa Times when it reported that "several representatives of the fourth estate have also entered an appearance" in the parliamentary premises. It was soon too late to do anything about this intrusion, which persists until this day.
The main business for the first day of the first Canadian parliament was, as today, the selection of a Speaker. Even at that time the newspapers engaged in speculation, one forecasting on the morning of November 6 that it would either be James Cockbum from Ontario or John Grey from New Brunswick.
As it turned out, that afternoon Sir John A. Macdonald nominated Mr. Cockburn and he was seconded, in French, by Sir Georges Etienne Cartier.
The events of the first sitting were almost -but not entirely-harmonious. It was another portent of things to come that the first recorded division of opinion in the Canadian House of Commons was over bilingualism. Mr. Joseph Dufresne, the member for Montcalm, objected, in a speech described in news reports as "lengthy", to Mr. Cockburn's appointment on the grounds that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the French language to fulfil his duties.
Cartier replied, along lines which have become courteously normal, that while Mr. Cockburn's French might not be as good as his English, the new Speaker nevertheless understood French-he had learned it at school-and there should be no inconvenience on that score.
But this was the only ripple of division on that first day. To quote the Ottawa Times again:
So far the utmost harmony has characterized the intercourse of members and, from all we can hear, the reign of faction has received a wholesome check from the extention of our national existence and the consequent enlargement of the views of the statesmen of the Dominion of Canada.
The speech from the throne for that first session of our first parliament was not read

until the second sitting day, on November 7, 1867. It would appear, however, that government "leaks" could happen even in those days. In a morning newspaper of November 7, published hours before the speech from the throne was read, much of its content was forecast in paragraphs beginning with such phrases as "It will very likely be stated that..."; "It is also very probable that..."; "The attention of the house will also, in all probability, be invited to... " All that was missing on that occasion was the "informed sources."
On November 7, when the opening ceremonies were finished in the Senate chamber, the throne speech was read a second time in the House of Commons, a precedent that was not followed for long, and Canada's first parliament was under way. A newspaper concluded its comment on this historic moment with the admonition:
We hope, therefore, to see a session of practical work rather than party bickering.
This admonition, Mr. Speaker, echoes the words of the speech from the throne itself, in which the Governor General prayed that the parliamentarians might be endowed with a "spirit of moderation and wisdom." The Governor General in that first throne speech also referred to the estimates to be laid before parliament. His words sound familiar, because he asserted that:
-they have been framed with all the attention to economy which is compatible with the maintenance of efficiency-
The amount required in those first estimates was $521,593, and there were complaints of extravagance.
Since that opening day, Mr. Speaker, the parliament of Canada has grown in importance, in power, and in the scope and nature of its responsibilities. It has grown, as the country has grown, and it has reflected the troubles and the triumphs of that growth which has brought Canada from a partially self governing colony to a respected and strong independent and united state in the world; which has brought parliament from an assembly with limited requirements and desire to intervene in the lives of its citizens no more than was absolutely necessary for the discharge of its duty to ensure peace, order and good government in the narrowest sense, to a parliament which has accepted almost every kind of responsibility for the life and welfare and progress of the citizens.
November 6* 1967

Parliament, Mr. Speaker, up to the present has been able to ensure that the growth of bureaucratic power, which has inevitably accompanied these developments, has not destroyed the basic rights and freedoms of the individual citizen. Our parliament has led the nation through the sacrifice and the agony of war. It has been the effective agency for the expression of public opinion in the recurring crises of peace.
I know that parliamentary institutions are under fire these days, but let it be said once more that no alternative form of organization for the development of political society has ever been discovered or developed which has been able to make half so well the essential reconciliation of liberty and order, of free enterprise and public responsibility, necessary for a healthy, democratic state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Conditions have changed
with breathtaking speed these latter years, and to be able to play its traditional role as the agency for expressing best the people's will, parliament must change too, adapting its way and rules to new requirements without losing its essential effectiveness as the protector of the people's rights and liberties. To make this change without weakening this purpose-that, Mr. Speaker, is now our responsibility, and a serious one indeed. Perhaps it is well to remind ourselves of this responsibility as we commemorate today the first session of the parliament of Canada, opened at this place 100 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the proper thing to do today is to express our faith, first in our parliamentary institutions and then in the future of our country.
If it is true, as some people claim, that we have come to a cross-roads, it is more urgent than ever for everyone of us to make a wise choice. The immediate task of our second century involves urgent reforms of parliament and a careful study of our constitutional problems. The opportunities provided by parliament to solve our problems must not be overlooked. National unity should remain our essential and prime objective. Without that unity, nothing lasting will be built, either within provincial jurisdictions or throughout Canada.
DEBATES	3907
Anniversary of First Session of Parliament
I am convinced that the only possible choice remains national unity. It is the only thing that will enable us in this exceptionally bountiful part of the world to achieve the unique human experiment of brotherhood in social peace and prosperity.
In this continuing dialogue, Mr. Speaker, our heart must share as well as our mind and our reason. We have in common a unique heritage which is Canada. That is why I make bold to say that it is as important for our heart to share as for our mind. Let us then continue profitable discussions, but let us always keep Canada as an ideal.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: 
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenleuil-Deux-Monfagnes: Mr. Speaker, when speaking
today of 100 years of parliamentary life under confederation, we cannot readily ignore, due to tactfulness or unconcern, the fact that, at this very moment, some people in Canada speak of 100 years of injustice. Because of this, which concerns all Canadians, I should like to speak on that particular point.
One needs but read the parliamentary annals and Hansard to see that throughout our parliamentary history, French Canadians from Cartier and Laurier on, have made a positive contribution to our federal system that no one should be ashamed of, but on the contrary that is a source of legitimate pride.
On the other hand, if we go back to the first days of confederation, particularly the few years preceding it, we cannot avoid noticing that the activity of the French-speaking national group was inspired by and directed
November G, 19G7

to its very survival within the English-speaking majority of the community. Our families, our communities, our institutions concentrated their energies on this survival. This activity then, operated within the group and such efforts necessarily resulted in the alienation of the majority feelings towards us, not so much wilfully as through ignorance or lack of interest in the French fact.
It is only in the last twenty or twenty-five years that the French-speaking group has acquired enough confidence in itself and in its own survival to assert its presence and concentrate its efforts on its development in all areas of Canadian life.
Since then, its institutions are packed with first-rate candidates in every professional, economic, political, social and national sphere. This presence is more and more tangible, and it is not surprising that the English-speaking majority wonders about this new self-assertion, because until then, it had shown no interest and it still offers a certain resistance.
That this resistance will be interpreted as opposition and intolerance in some quarters seems inevitable, just as it is inevitable that some elements of the minority will express very vigorously their impatience and their desire to participate fully.
If we realize that the constitution is good enough to allow at least the survival of the French-speaking minority, all our efforts must now be directed towards creating the climate that will facilitate its full maturity and its full development; there is no doubt that this Canadian identity we are all anxiously looking for will come out of it. From then on the French participation will be less deeply felt by the strength of its claims than by the worth of its contributions, provided of course that it is given by all the instruments which the French fact will need to ensure its own development.
This would be specified in a revised constitution that would be more closely in contact with Canadian reality.
In the same way that, throughout the world, forces built on the single premise of class warfare will wane, the day people of the world merge into one class of free citizens with equal opportunities, the minority that speaks of 100 years of injustice will be forced into silence when such equality is effectively provided both in our minds and our statutes.
A hundred years ago, governor general, Viscount Monck, stated before the house, which numbered 180 members at the time, 27053-2471
DEBATES	3909
Anniversary of First Session of Parliament that legislation had to be enacted to put this constitution, which was quite new in some respects, to a full, reasonable, prejudice-free test.
The present parliament is only taking over in performing that task, by finding the legislative measures which will give the best chances of success to modern-day realities.
Let us put an end to the pessimism of a small number by reminding ourselves of the quotation of a youth of 23; "Confederation will be the grave of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada", said that prophet of doom. Yet, he himself proved his saying wrong by later becoming Prime Minister of Canada. I quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
And so, on this one hundredth anniversary, let us, members of parliament, live our act of faith by making of Canada our top priority.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic party are happy to associate themselves with the other parties in the house in noting this historic occasion, the one hundredth anniversary of the meeting of the first parliament of Canada. It is not without significance that this anniversary should follow so closely upon Guy Fawkes day. A former member of this house, the ebullient Gerry McGeer, once said that Guy Fawkes was the only person he had known who approached parliament in the right frame of mind.
The newspaper reports of that first parliament in Ottawa on November 6, 1867, say that after having selected the Speaker, the House of Commons went into closed session. While no records were kept as to the decisions reached then, the newspapers said it was their opinion that a decision had been made to close the bar in the House of Commons. I have no doubt this was in order to give effect to Sir John A. Macdonald's plea for a sober second thought.
In taking note of this important anniversary I think we have to remember that the problems which face this parliament are vastly more complex than those which faced Canada's first parliament. We live in a technological society, in the midst of growing urbanization, in a world which, as McLuhan has said, has become a global village. While the instruments at hand are most sophisticated, the problems are much more far reaching and terrifying. Yet I should like to submit to the house that the basic problem, the problem of human relations, the problem of people learning how to live together, is still the same.
November 6, 19G7

Anniversary of First Session of Parliament
The fact that the first debate in the first parliament had to do with bilingualism indicates that we could have a similar debate today, and that the problem of finding ways and means by which two great cultures could live together in harmony and unity is still with us. The Greeks have an old saying that the more things change, the more they are the same. The problem which faces Canada today is much the same as the problem of 100 years ago; that is, how those of us who are English speaking and French speaking Canadians can work together to make this the great nation that our forefathers dreamed it might be.
If there is any common purpose which binds us together in this house, irrespective of party, it is the desire for a unified and a vibrant Canada. We hear talk of separatism. I think the talk is much more vociferous than the extent to which that sentiment is shared by Canadians. But I think we have to say, and say it repeatedly, that in the opinion of the great majority of the members of this house any kind of separatism is unthinkable, unnecessary and undesirable.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This parliament, of course, deals with a much larger area and many more regions than did the first parliament. In 1867 Upper and Lower Canada and the two maritime provinces came together in a confederation, but the great western area was untouched. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland were still outside. British Columbia and the prairie provinces, Prince Edward Island in 1873, and Newfoundland in our own lifetime, joined confederation so that now it stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the forty ninth parallel to the Arctic ocean.
This means that we have more diverse problems, and that we have regional problems which must be recognized and met. One hundred years ago national unity mainly centred on the problem of bilingualism, but today if we are to have national unity the solution of biculturalism by itself will not be sufficient. National unity today must also be founded on equality of opportunity for every citizen in Canada, irrespective of where he or she may live and irrespective of their race, colour or religion. Unless we can provide social and economic opportunity and security for Canadians in every region of this country, we will not be able to build the kind of unified and vital Canada that all of us desire.
One of the problems which faced our forefathers in that first session of the first
IMr. Douglas.]
parliament was the growing desire for independence, because although in 1867 Canada was to have control of its own affairs it still was tied to a very considerable extent to the apron strings of Whitehall and much of its foreign policy and its military affairs were in the hands of the government of the United Kingdom. Even in the first world war Sir Robert Borden had to fight hard to retain the identity of the Canadian army and to prevent Canadian units from being dispersed throughout the British army. It was not until 60 years after confederation that we got the Statute of Westminster making Canada completely sovereign in its own right.
In this year 1967, the change in economic, trade and investment policies has altered the direction of the threat to our independence. We no longer have to worry about breaking the shackles of colonialism with Great Britain. We are now in danger of becoming an economic satellite of our great neighbour to the south. This poses a new set of problems and demands a new set of solutions. We pride ourselves that we have lived in friendship with our great neighbour to the south and we want to continue to do so. But at the same time, as Canadians we must continue to assert the kind of independence that our forefathers had in mind when confederation was established.
On this important occasion it seems to me this is the time for us to do two things: first, pay tribute to the members of that first parliament, to those men who "saw beyond the lean horizon of their days," and say of them that they built better than they knew; and the second, for us to so conduct ourselves in this parliament that we shall be worthy of those who went before us and earn the gratitude of those who come after us.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, although unfortunately I am not of French Canadian origin, may I be allowed to say a few words in French on behalf of our party.
When we remember the problems with which the members of parliament were faced a hundred years ago, we notice with some surprise that many of them still remain. National unity, bilingualism, equality among the various parts of the country, the true independence of the new nation, all those problems still require our attention and our wisdom. We have made tremendous progress but the basic problem, of human relationship still remains.
November 6, 1967

We are all proud of our parliament, our advances and our democracy. In my opinion, we have the duty today to revise our rules and parliamentary procedure, to modernize our practices and even our ideas so as to solve our serious problems and particularly the problem of national unity.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention a while ago to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who told some stories about the first session of the first Canadian parliament. I think that there were only two parties in the house at that time, the Conservative and Liberal parties. Now, we must admit that parliament has grown richer these past years, since there are here good Social Crediters.
Mr. Speaker, nobody mentioned that, in 1867, the sovereign government of Canada which was sitting for the first time and which had to pass some legislation was tackling the same problems which we are now experiencing. But then, the Bank of Canada did not exist. It was created later. And we are still facing the same problems as in 1867.
And when, in 1934, the government decided to establish the Bank of Canada, it was to achieve financial independence in order to make it possible to gain economic independence. Now, we have parliamentary independence. We are using it after a fashion. The fathers of confederation did not know what we know today and could not anticipate that we would now face productivity and development problems. Canada was vast; means of communications were non-existent and it took ever so long to cover a constituency. There were no automobiles, no railroads, no airplanes. People did not know each other at all.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Times have changed a lot; the problems too have changed and solutions must change. Yet, we have not achieved our economic independence.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, let us revert to the more serious concerns of today, the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the first sitting of the first session of modern Canada.
Since this first session, where only four provinces were represented, many things have changed. Six provinces have been added to the four original ones, in addition to two territories, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which have joined Canada, and our beautiful and vast country has since undergone stupendous, I might even say miraculous, development and progress.
DEBATES	3911
Anniversary of First Session of Parliament
During one hundred years, our country has experienced glory but also many blighted hopes. It has been in constant evolution involving concrete and happy achievements but also many cases of injustice which should not repeat themselves at the dawn of a new century.
Everyone knows that we have a constitution which confers rights and imposes duties to the federal as well as to provincial governments. The most elementary justice, understanding, tolerance should not be the responsibility of only one sector of our country, and that is why I say to the Canadian nation that the letter and especially the spirit of the Canadian constitution have, until now, been respected only in the province of Quebec. That is why, Mr. Speaker, on the commemoration of our Canadian parliamentary institution, I urge the leaders and the people of all Canadian provinces to treat in their respective boundaries our French-speaking minorities as Quebec has treated and is still treating the English-speaking minority within its boundaries. It is on that condition only that we will be able to achieve fully the understanding, the friendship and the unity so necessary to the development and the maturity of our wonderful country.
Co-operation and tolerance are not oneway streets. An English-speaking Canadian must feel at home everywhere in Canada, even in Quebec, but a French-speaking Canadian must feel at home not only in Quebec but in all the provinces of Canada. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that all Englishspeaking Canadians must learn French, no more than all French-speaking Canadians must learn English. No. But that means that within their respective provinces, if Canadians really accept the fact of co-existence or the circumstances in which they should live, they ought to learn, at all costs, to respect others who do not speak their language, who do not have the same culture, and I say that not only in my own province but in every province.
I think that the central government which has no business interfering with provincial matters, could at least make suggestions when federal-provincial conferences take place. It could suggest to the provinces which have trouble understanding the situation, to exert at least tolerance, fairness and understanding towards French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians.
This means that steps must be taken so that all Canadians may be fully respected
November 6, 1967
3912	COMMONS
Anniversary of First Session of Parliament everywhere all across Canada. Reference is often made to unity in diversity and that is possible only if, in Vancouver as well as in St. John's, Newfoundland, the same treatment is given to the French minority, one of the founding peoples, as is often said of Canada in 1867.
That unity, Mr. Speaker, will ensure peace, security and freedom to all our people.

Since 1867, Mr. Speaker, this country has twice been defended by Canadians of all origins.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: While our young Canadians have had to serve both in this country and abroad to protect the things the Canadian people as a whole believed in, they have been forgotten too often. I think our parliamentary institution has the obligation and responsibility to think a little more about these Canadian youngsters of all origins who have served their country.
Our country is an outstanding one; everyone agrees with that. Our parliamentary institution has been given the task of maintaining in this land of ours peace and prosperity, and is responsible for creating an economic climate that will permit the realization of true national unity. I do not mean unity in words alone, but a true national unity which will serve the best interests of our people and the future of this great country of Canada.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, during the past months we have had a great many activities and events across this nation which have reminded us of the fact that 100 years ago the Canadian nation was born through the act of confederation. All of us have been inspired, and I am sure we are all glad we are Canadians. All these events were of great significance, but I believe this particular event we are commemorating is possibly of the greatest significance to us as Canadians. Therefore the members of this party join in recognizing and acknowledging the benefits and accomplishments of the parliamentary system which we have in Canada today. This is indeed an historic occasion, Mr. Speaker, and it is an honour to be a member of this parliament as we pause today to remember that 100 years ago the first session of Canada's first parliament was convened.
[Mr. Caouette.l

If the only criterion for determining whether or not an institution or a system should or should not be continued is newness, this institution which has served us for 100 years would now be discarded. If, however, durability and proven worth are the determining factors, I believe we should jealously guard our parliamentary system today and for generations to come.
Appreciating the heritage established by the mother of parliaments, and challenged by those who laid the foundations well and strong in this our own land, it is our hope that we who participate in this twenty seventh parliament of Canada will maintain standards of sincerity and service that will enhance its worth in the eyes of the nation and work effectively in the interests of Canada and the world.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members of this house I listened with interest to the stirring words which have been spoken on this momentous occasion, words which have emphasized that the most important matter concerning us today is national unity.
As one whose paternal grandfather was a member of the first parliament of Canada I should be remiss in my duty if I did not now say a few words about an important subject which has not been mentioned. Wemyss Mackenzie Simpson, who sat in the first parliament of Canada and later became, as I recall, commissioner for Indian affairs, was given the task of drawing up many of the treaties with our native people throughout western Canada and particularly in Manitoba.
Much has been said about the rights and privileges of minorities in our country. I am sure you will understand that I and other hon. members of the house are concerned that the rights and privileges of some, particularly our native people, have been not only abrogated but done away with. Though the Indian people of Canada today have received many benefits which are not theirs by right under any treaty, rights and privileges which were granted to them under treaty are being abrogated.
This historic centennial event is an opportune occasion for members in this house- and I hope hon. members who follow us will feel this way also-to urge the government to discontinue acts by which treaties which were made earlier with these people are
November 6, 1967

being abrogated. Should parliament on some future occasion feel that doing away with treaty rights might be beneficial for our native people, I hope any such action that may be taken will not be taken until there has been full consultation with and agreement of our native people in order that their rights and privileges may be preserved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that these speeches be printed, as delivered, in Votes and Proceedings'?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts-Mr. Stanbury.
[Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings:]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I seek permission of the house to table at this time ways and means resolutions proposing amendments to the customs tariff to implement Canada's commitments under the Kennedy round agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are eight resolutions which when printed will fill a volume of more than 100 pages. They are additional to the four tariff resolutions which were presented in the budget and which are now before the committee of ways and means.
The longest and most important of the new resolutions sets out in detail the reduced rates of duty which are to come into effect either in a single step on January 1, 1968, or in annual stages over a period not to exceed four years commencing on that date. The other resolutions provide for a number of consequential changes in other tariff provisions: for a broadening of the item providing for duty free entry of certain machinery and equipment for grading fruits and vegetables; and for the implementation of the results of negotiations which were conducted concurrently with the Kennedy round in order to permit action on tariff board reports relating
Customs Tariff
to mining machinery and certain electronic apparatus.
Chemicals are not dealt with in these resolutions, nor are anti-dumping duties. Legislation relating to these matters will be introduced in due course, with a proposed effective date of July 1, 1968.
The resolutions I am tabling propose that our Kennedy round tariff concessions be implemented by statute. However, in order to safeguard Canada's position in the event that one or more or our trading partners should not be in a position to implement their commitments in accordance with the agreed timetable, it is proposed that the statute empower the governor in council, by order, to postpone the coming into force of the concessions provided for therein.
I suggest that these resolutions should be printed and appended to today's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition welcomes the presentation of these resolutions to parliament. We shall examine them carefully once they come up for discussion. We are glad to see that the government has retained considerable flexibility in the implementation of these tariff reductions, as it is obvious that flexibility will be required in the months ahead.
As we know the purpose of these tariff reductions is to increase the flow of trade by removing impediments to trade among the countries of the world. It has become obvious nevertheless in the past two weeks that some in the United States would nullify the advantages that should rightly accrue to Canada when, as the result of greater flexibility in trade, the United States reduces its tariff on our products. Some in the United States would nullify any advantages Canada would enjoy by seeking to implement import quotas against our goods. Such quotas would nullify any advantages which might accrue to Canadian industry through lower United States tariffs.
Senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader in the United States Senate, said this at a press conference on Friday afternoon:
Congress will Impose at least some import quotas, despite threats of a presidential veto.
Senator Dirksen, in other words, as minority leader has good grounds for believing that

November 6, 1967
Customs Tariff
congress will obtain the two thirds majority that is necessary to override the presidential veto. We must persuade those in the United States who wish to carry out such an action, the imposition of import quotas, not to do so. We can persuade the government of the United States not to impose its quotas if the government of Canada says to the United States government and to the United States people that we have no intention of lowering tariffs with respect to any goods coming from the United States if, on similar goods coming from this country, the United States imposes import quotas. A clear cut statement to this effect by this government will deter those in the United States who seek to impose quotas.
We sincerely hope these quotas will not be imposed. We hope the great benefits which President Kennedy thought would flow from a reduction in tariffs will be achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on behalf of our party. Every forward looking person has greeted the idea of freer trade in the world with enthusiasm. I share the concern of the hon. member for Northumberland, and no doubt the minister and his colleagues feel an equal concern about certain proposals in the United States. I wonder whether we could empower the governor in council not only to postpone the coming into force of any resolution but, as well, enable him to withdraw any cutbacks in our tariff if, later, quotas are set against the importation of Canadian goods.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should also like to say that as is the case in other such situations, the ancilliary legislation which I understand is to follow is just as important as are these resolutions. I refer to the legislation which will deal with the transitional period during which industry and workers will be adjusting to the cuts made following the Kennedy round, legislation which will, I hope, make provision for the capital and retooling required by industry as well as for opportunities and funds for retraining and relocation of employees. All of this, to us, makes one package and we are looking forward to discussing these measures as well as the resolutions.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I would only say on behalf of this party that we welcome the announcement by the minister with regard to the resolutions which are to be introduced.
Surely this action is urgently required; one can but agree with the hon. gentleman that it is wise to retain with the governor in council the prerogative of determining when the Kennedy round concessions should come into effect, especially when one hears repeatedly about the attitude of the United States in implementing its own policies and the Kennedy round agreements which have been referred to earlier. It may also be necessary for the governor in council to retain the prerogative of withdrawing from some of these agreements should circumstances justify taking such action.
The disastrous effect on Canadian agriculture caused by the shift in United States wheat marketing policy following failure to renew the international wheat agreement is evidence that Canada must stand firmly on her own feet. In this regard I will only say I regret that Canada did not take a firmer stand earlier on this issue. It is certainly imperative that we safeguard our position in the future vis-a-vis other nations in respect to the Kennedy round agreements.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Pursuant to section 7(7) of the Financial Administration Act, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 74 of the Statutes of Canada 1966-67, has the Governor in Council promulgated regulations providing for the conduct of an inquiry into the dismissal of any public servant in the interest of the safety or security of Canada?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	If not, what consideration has been given to the matter?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: The answer is as follows: 1. No regulations have been promulgated, and no case has arisen which would require provision to be made for such an inquiry.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	As a result of consideration by the officials responsible, the matter was referred to the royal commission on security as one falling within its terms of reference and on which it would clearly be desirable to have the advice of the commission.

November 6, 1967


CONSCIENCE CLAUSE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	In the conduct of collective bargaining negotiations with bargaining agents as defined by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, has any employer, as defined in subsection (i) or (ii) of section 2(o) of that act (a) requested, or (b) insisted, upon the inclusion of a so-called "conscience clause" in the collective bargaining agreement which would relieve those persons who object on religious or conscientious grounds from the provisions of the agreement on condition that they make equivalent fees contribution to a recognized charity?
2.	If so, with what result?
3.	If not, will consideration now be given to this problem?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	No.
2.	N/A.
3.	Consideration will no doubt be given to the problem of appropriate forms of union security, and to the views of conscientious objectors, during the process of negotiations.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the government taken any action to implement the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada that an advisory committee be established to consider the salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of persons excluded from bargaining units?
2.	If so (a) what is the nature of such action (b) who are the members of such committee (c) what are its terms of reference?
3.	If not, when may action be anticipated?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board:) 1. Yes.
2.	(a) An announcement was made on September 13, 1967, that the government had decided to establish an advisory group on executive compensation in the public service, (b) Appointments to this group, which will be composed of five eminent Canadians, will be made soon, (c) The advisory group will from time to time make recommendations to the government on: (1) the rates of pay and conditions of employment in the public service; and (2) the principles that should govern determination of the rates of pay and conditions of employment of other public servants employed in a managerial or confidential capacity.
3.	N/A.
Questions


MEDICAL PAYMENTS, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO INDIAN AGENCIES
Mr. Reid: 1.	In each of the past five years, what has been the total moneys paid out by Indian medical services of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the Indian agencies of Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances?
2.	What was the total amount in each of the past five years submitted by the medical practitioners of the Indian agencies of Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances to the Indian medical services of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	What was the budget for these services in each of the five years, and if there was a deficit, how was it made up?
4.	What is the length of time between the issuance of the cheque in payment for services and the submission of the account by medical doctors in the Indian agencies of Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 1962-63, $80,803; 1963-64, $91,374; 1964-65, $ 99,660; 1965-66, $112,250; 1966-67, $158,722.
2.	1962-63, $91,299; 1963-64, $99,638; 196465,	$107,799;	1965-66,	$138,234;	1966-67,

3.	Although budgets are established for professional and special services in northwestern Ontario identification of the amounts in these budgets to be paid to the medical practitioners in each agency is not possible because budgeting has not been on an agency basis.
4.	Elapsed time between the submission and payment of physicians accounts averages six to eight weeks.


NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have there been any changes In the role of the national joint council since the report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the public service?
2.	If so, what are they?
3.	If not, are any changes contemplated?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Yes.
2.	In the light of the new collective bargaining relationship that now prevails between the government and its employees, the national joint council, of its own initiative, proposed a revision to its constitution that would be appropriate to this new relationship. The main effect of the new constitution is that the council will not consider matters
3916

November 6, 1967
Questions
that are normally subject to collective bargaining procedures or arbitration, although the council may consider such matters if it is so agreed by the parties engaged in bargaining.
3.	N/A.


CONTINUATION OF PAY RESEARCH BUREAU
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has any consideration been given by the government to the recommendation of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the public service of Canada, appearing at page 1333 of the committee's proceedings and evidence, "that the government consider legislation to continue the pay research bureau and to provide for the data collected thereby to be available to the bargaining parties
2.	If so, what are the intentions of the government in this respect?
3.	Has the pay research bureau been continued in existence as recommended by the committee by other than legislative action?
4.	If so (a) by what techniques or methods (b) what is its present status?
5.	Are the data collected available to bargaining parties?
6.	If so, upon what conditions?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: 1. Yes. The government concluded however that legislation was not required.
2.	See (1) above.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) By establishment action. The positions approved by the Treasury Board for the pay research bureau were deleted from the establishment of the public service commission and added to that of the public service staff relations board, (b) The pay research bureau, which now operates under the administrative jurisdiction of the public service staff relations board, continues to function as an independent agency with responsibility for obtaining and presenting objective information on rates of pay, employee earnings, conditions of employment and related practices prevailing both inside and outside the public service.
5.	The chairman of the public service staff relations board advises that the data collected will be made available to the bargaining parties as determined under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
6.	The chairman of the public service staff relations board further advises that bargaining parties will have access to pay research bureau data required for negotiations related to the respective bargaining units. However,

the confidential information provided by the private employers has been obtained from them by the bureau on the understanding that the pay research bureau reports based on such information would be released only to persons involved in the establishment of pay rates, social benefits and conditions of work in the service and to the employers providing the basic data to the bureau, but would not be distributed for general public consumption. This understanding was reached with the private employers several years ago and has continued to this date. As a consequence of these conditions, the confidentiality of the information was also agreed upon by the advisory committee on pay research comprising employer and employee representatives. However, in view of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the advisory committee will be reconstituted as soon as a substantial number of bargaining agents have been identified and the present understanding regarding the distribution of pay research data will be reviewed at that time.


GRAIN SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Dinsdale: Revised
1.	How many bushels of grain have been shipped through Port Churchill each year since 1960, and what kind of grains have been involved and in what quantities?
2.	What is the total cost of the diversion charge on these grains, and what is the reason for the diversion charge?
3.	What has been the total tonnage of incoming freight through Port Churchill each year since 1960?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Trade and Commerce as follows:
The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1966	Wheat (bus.) 22,192,976
1965	25,002,972
1964	22,067,711
1963	23,262,463
1962	21,845,124
1961	19,696,812
1960	19,793,906
2. The total amount of diversion charges paid by the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of grain shipped through the port of
November 6, 1967

Churchill in each navigation season from
1960 to 1966 is	as follows:
Churchill	Diversion charge
shipping	on country shipments
season	direct to Churchill
1960	$269,310.28
1961	275,183.66
1962	302,032.29
1963	341,486.56
1964	323,259.98
1965	295,367.89
1966	326,877.91
Under terms of a handling agreement negotiated annually with all elevator companies, a diversion charge is paid by the Canadian Wheat Board on wheat shipped by elevator companies from their country elevators directly to the port of Churchill for export.
Questions
A diversion charge is a charge assessed by an elevator company when grain shipped from one of its country elevators is diverted from that company's terminal elevator to another destination. Elevator companies consider that their country and terminal elevators operate as an entity, and terminal revenues are an important factor in determining the basis upon which country elevators can be operated. Therefore, it has been a long established trade practice that when a company loses terminal handling on grain as a result of the diversion of country elevator shipment to a destination other than the company's terminal, a diversion charge is assessed to compensate for the loss of terminal earnings.
3.
Total inward cargo-Churchill
Tons weight or Domestic
		Bulk
	General	cargo
Year	cargo	(ore)1966	115	-1965	369	-1964	813	-1963	187	-1962	645	12,1581961	356	17,3541960	326	21,120ADULT	OCCUPATIONAL	TRAINING


Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What was the amount paid to each province for the occupational training of adults?
2.	Regarding these grants, what help is being given by the federal government for the construction and purchase of centres to provide adult pre-employment and retraining courses and continuing education for adults?
3.	What are the future plans of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in this respect?
4.	Has a study been made of this subject?
5.	What is the estimated expenditure for (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970?
6.	Is each province required to make a report to the federal government regarding federal grants received and, if so, what were the expenses incurred by each province for the years 1966 and 1967?
measurement
Foreign
	Bulk	
General	cargo	
cargo	(oil)	Total3,634	16,658	20,4071,835	18,034	20,2381,596	36,272	38,6811,703	49,206	51,0963,309	50,070	66,1822,191	48,891	68,7924,807	68,959	95,212


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	Payments to the provinces for occupational training for adults have not yet been made, since the program is new this year.
2.	The federal government will make contributions to the provinces or territories in respect of capital expenditures for the construction and equipping of vocational training facilities: (a) 75 per cent of the province's expenditures after March 31, 1967, up to $480 per capita of the 15 to 19 age group (1961 census) less the federal government's previous contributions paid under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act for capital expenditures. (b) 50 per cent of the province's expenditures after March 31, 1967, up to $320

November 6, 1967
Questions
per capita of the 15 to 19 age group (1961 census) less the federal government's previous contributions paid under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act for capital expenditures.
3.	To continue grants on the above formula and also to provide loans to provinces wishing to use the money to construct or purchase capital facilities for providing occupational training to adults. The appropriate part of the amortization of principal and interest on these loans may be included in the cost of occupational training courses purchased by the department.
4.	Yes, a number of studies.
5.	Estimates have not yet been approved.
6.	Each province submits claims against expenditures incurred. The federal capital grants were:
Province	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year
	1965-66	1966-67
Nfld.	$ 327,381	$ 192,056P.E.I.	66,994	17,948N.S.	547,101	2,337,672N.B.	303,496	768,317Que.	42,125,972	50,083,409Ont.	31,397,733	44,289,911Man.	1,571,205	5,287,979Sask.	995,673	4,152,789Alta.	11,282,807	16,649,175B.C.	15,278,400	12,180,356Yukon	192,784	96,758N.W.T.	-	-$104,089,546	$136,056,370


APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Was there an advertisement placed in any newspaper or any other medium for the position as chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	If so (a) what were the qualifications set out in such an advertisement (b) how many applications were received (c) what was the result of the considerations of such applications (d) if no advertisement was issued calling for applications, under what arrangement was the position filled?
3.	Did the successful appointee have any role in establishing this commission?
4.	Did the Minister of Transport, at the time the decision for appointment was made, examine the list of applicants, or in any other manner assist in the determination of the final selection?
[Mr. Munro.l


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. No.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) Not applicable, (d) The president was appointed by governor in council in accordance with the National Transportation Act, statutes of Canada, 196667, Chapter 69.
3.	Not applicable since the commission was established by act of parliament.
4.	Not applicable in view of the answer in 2(d) above.


CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON PENSION COMMISSION
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	With reference to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as reported at page 2463 of Hansard, September 25, 1967, is it the intention of the minister to give the Canadian Pension Commission, which is the subject of the Wood commission inquiry, an opportunity to deal with provisions of the report before the report is tabled in the House of Commons?
2.	If so (a) will such action permit the Canadian Pension Commission to exercise opposition to provisions of the report (b) would the minister give consideration to having the advance study referred to in his remarks of September 25 carried out by members of his staff not connected with the Canadian Pension Commission?
3.	In the absence of the present deputy minister of veterans affairs on leave from the department, would the minister advise the house the names of departmental personnel he has selected to carry out the above study?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. It is my intention at the moment to submit the report for study by the commission and the department at an early date.
2.	(a) Yes. I will be interested in the comments of officers of the commission as well as those of the department, (b) Members of the staff not connected with the Canadian Pension Commission will be asked to study the report.
3.	I do not know the names of all the persons who will be asked to study the report, but it is my intention to ask the acting deputy minister and the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission to do so, and I have no doubt they will ask members of their respective staffs to assist in this work.


INVESTIGATION INTO UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Were any formal investigation conducted by the Department of National Defence or any other agency of government relative to the reported
November 6, 1967

sightings of unidentified flying objects in eastern Manitoba, which reports originated during the months of May and June, 1967?
2.	If so, were any such investigations conducted with the joint co-operation of the United States Air Force or any other U.S. government agency or academic institution?
3.	Is the Department of National Defence or any other agency of the federal government now in possession of a report on any such investigations?
4.	If so, will the report be made public?
5.	Has a government committee been established to review this subject-matter?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes, the Department of National Defence, together with the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted an investigation into the alleged sighting of an unidentified flying object by Mr. Stephen Michalak at Falcon Lake, Manitoba.
2.	No. However, representatives from the Universities of Colorado and Arizona conducted an informal independent investigation.
3.	Yes.
4.	It is not the intent of the Department of National Defence to make public the report of the alleged sighting.
5.	No.


COPIES OF B.N.A. ACT PROCLAMATION
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Is the reproduction of the proclamation issued by Queen Victoria that formally brought into force the British North America Act of 1867, a true copy or photostat of the original?
2.	Is the French language version of that same proclamation a true copy or photostat of the original, or is it a composition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If this question refers to the proclamations prepared by the centennial commission for use in connection with the confederation train and caravan project, the answers are as follows: 1. The English language version was reproduced by a photo offset process from the original proclamation.
2. Research uncovered no French language version. The centennial commission arranged for the English version to be translated and then set in type approximating as closely as possible the type face and style of composition used in the English version.


CONSTRUCTION OF THERMONUCLEAR PLANT, QUEBEC
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Did the federal government have preliminary discussions with the government of the province
Questions
of Quebec or the management of Hydro-Quebec concerning the thermonuclear plant being constructed at Gentilly, a section of the new town of Becancour, Quebec?
2.	If so, does the federal government contribute financially or otherwise to the project?
3.	What is the exact nature and cost of this contribution?
4.	What organization will be responsible for the distribution of that power and for the determination of the cost?
5.	Will some power be exported to the United States?
6.	What is the approximate date on which this plant will be effectively put into operation?
7.	Will the federal government have any decision in the management or future policy-making of the plant?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is building the plant at their own expense on a site provided by Hydro-Quebec. The cost of the plant is estimated to be $106,000,000. When the plant has been in satisfactory operation Hydro-Quebec will purchase it at a negotiated price based on a formula set out in the agreement between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Hydro-Quebec.
4.	Hydro-Quebec.
5.	No information.
6.	On-power date: 1971.
7.	Yes, until the plant has been purchased by Hydro-Quebec.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Caouelte: Is there a list of present members of the company of young Canadians who are (a) part-time (b) full-time members?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: Yes. (a) None, (b) Susan Allan, Betty Andrew, Torben Angelo, Lynn Arnold, Mary Arpin, Gilles Ashton, Jeremy Ashton, Lynn Atkins, Jerry Bain, Jonleah Bain, Charles Barber, Andre Baril, Kate Barlow, Wayne Barr, Russ Barton, Austin Bear, Judy Bradford, Roselyn Breckner, Dal Brodhead, Carmen Brunet, Yves Brunet, Peter Bryan, Albert Burger, Lynn Burrows, John Callender, Sandy Callender, Pierre Cantin, Patricia Ca-risse, Edouard Casaubon, Elise Casaubon, Shirley Chychaluk, Karen Clements, Pierre Cleroux, Maurice Clouthier, Colin Constant,

November 6, 1967
Questions
Maureen Corcoran, W. Courtorielle, Dennis Cromarty, Dennis Crossfield, Diane Curtis, Lynn Curtis, Lise Daneau, Robert Davis, Jim Deacove, Ruth Deacove, David DePoe, Denis Desautels, Janet Dokis, Claude Duchemin, Nancy Duggan, Andy Dumyn, Martin Dunn, Ross Eadie, John Earnshaw, F. Bertrand Ede, Karen Embleton, Gerry Fatels, Rose Fatels, Marilyn Foubert, Jeff Fritzland, Ron Fuchs, R. Gagnon, Phil Gambill, Lynda Gibson, Kathy Goldney, Roger Gray, Roger Haines, Maeva Hancey, Bill Harany, Lloyd Harriman, Ken Harrison, Ernest Hart, Roxine Hartwell, Jacqueline Hibbert, Dorothy Hill, Linda Hunter, Eleanor Hyodo, David Isaac, Jay Jervis, Lynn Johnson, Joan Jones, Peter Kagis, Chris Keller, Shirley Koen, Linda Kopochinski, W. LaChance, Jean R. Laforest, Marcel La-freniere, Luc Laliberte, Geraldine Lalonde, Philippe Lalonde, Ann Lane, Hughette La-rivee, Terry Lavallee, Roland Lebrun, Grace Lee, Gaston Leroux, Harold Linklater, David Loonfoot, Josee Loyer, Serge Loyer, Robert Luker, Richard Lussier, Alice MacNeill, Murray Martin, Ginette Metivier, Jenny Mofifa, John Mofifa, Priscilla Morrisseau, Heather Morton, George Munroe, Bernie Muzeen, Ian Nunn, Carol Oliver, Marc Patry, Jim Patterson, John Phillips, Laura Phillips, Carol Pickles, Bill Poole, Terry Presber, Margaret Redmonds, Alan Rimmer, Eleanor Rimmer, Pierette Rioux, John Rothwell, Gisele Samson, Dale Seddon, George Simard, Betsy Slye, Richard Slye, Gloria Smith, Lynn Smith, Henry Sobotka, Gregory Sorbara, Bill Sos-nowicz, Maureen Sterling, Harvey Stevens, Kelly Sweeney, Dave Tarlo, Conrad Tessier, Miriam Thomson, Wendy Waite, Donna Watt, Annelo West, Marg Whyte, Patricia Williams, Sara Williamson, Rob Wood, Bryan Wool-torton, Scott Wurtele, Samuel Wynne, Gail Young.


LOANS FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE PURIFICATION PROJECTS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Since December, 1960, what sum was loaned by C.M.H.C. by virtue of part VI-B of the National Housing Act for the implementation or expansion of Industrial waste purification projects?
2.	What is the interest on these loans?
3.	What is the breakdown of these loans by province?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made no loans under part VIB of the National Housing Act for sewage projects intended solely for treatment of industrial IMr. Matheson.l
wastes. The effluent being treated by many municipal plants assisted under this program does, however, include industrial waste.
The total loans committed from the inception of the program in 1960 to September 30, 1967 is $233,017,000.
2. The interest rate applicable at various periods during the operation of the program are as follows:
Interest
rate
Period	%
Dec. 1960 to April 12, 1961	54
April 13, 1961 to Sept. 30, 1961	5f
Oct. 1, 1961 to Nov. 4, 1963	54
Nov. 5, 1963 to Jan. 21, 1964	54
Jan. 22, 1964 to Jan. 9, 1966	5|
Jan. 10, 1966 to April 25, 1966	5J
April 26, 1966 to Oct. 27, 1966	5J
Oct. 28,	1966	to Jan.	19,	1967	6JJan. 20,	1967 to April	12,	1967	6April 13, 1967 to July 12, 1967	5fJuly 13,	1967	to Oct.	11,	1967	64Oct. 12,	1967	to present.	6$
3. The breakdown by province of loans committed to September 30, 1967 is as follows:
Total
loan
No. of commitment
Province	loans	($000)Newfoundland	22	2,029Prince Edward Island	13	242Nova Scotia	13	1,789New Brunswick	27	1,186Quebec	198	36,879Ontario	400	134,943Manitoba	103	17,342Saskatchewan	245	7,044Alberta	100	6,470British Columbia	96	25,093CANADA	1,217	233,017AMENDMENT OF VETERANS'	LAND ACT


Mr. McCleave: Would the government give consideration to amending the Veterans' Land Act to make eligible those service personnel who have had long careers, for example, of twenty years or more?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The Veterans' Land Act is one of
November 6, 1967

Questions
the major components of the numerous legislative measures comprising the veterans charter which were enacted by parliament to assist in the return to civilian life of those who saw active service in world war II or with the special force in Korea. The benefits of the Veterans' Land Act are alternative to those provided by the War Service Grants Act and the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Members of the regular forces of Canada who have had long service careers are eligible to apply for the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act if they served on active service in either of the abovementioned conflicts. However, it would not be in accordance with the purpose and intent of that act to make its provisions applicable to those who did not so serve.


SALE OF OXENDEN DOCK, ONTARIO
Mr. Noble: 1.	Were tenders called for sale of the Oxenden dock?
2.	Has the Oxenden dock been sold and if so, to whom and at what price?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answers are as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Yes, Mr. Lloyd Ruffett, Wiarton, Ontario $510.


EXPENDITURES ON SMOKING EDUCATION AND ASSISTANCE TO TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the 1966 amount, in dollars, which the Department of National Health and Welfare spent on the promotion of public education in the field of cigarette smoking and disease?
2.	What was the 1966 amount, in dollars, which the Department of Agriculture spent in assisting the research, maintenance or development of the tobacco industry?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Agriculture as follows:
1.	$129,612.
2.	$465,609.


OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many persons receive old age assistance in the province of Quebec?
2.	What was the federal government's share of this assistance for each year from 1960 to 1966?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. 22,784 as of September 1967.
2. 1960-61, $10,977,064; 1961-62, $10,896,302; 1962-63,	$13,793,745;	1963-64,	$13,860,075;
1964-65, $16,589,045. 1965-66*
*In accordance with an agreement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, no payments were made to Quebec in 1965-66.


ROYAL CANADIAN MEDICAL CORPS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What is the October 31, 1967, strength of medical officers of all ranks in the Royal Canadian Medical Corps?
2.	Of this number, how many possessed postgraduate and/or specialist qualifications?
3.	How many medical students are pursuing their studies under R.O.T.P. as of the same date?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The answer to part 1 is, 390; to part 2, 189, and to part 3, 165.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: 1.	What are the capital expenditures of each of the proprietary corporations as defined in the Financial Administration Act, for each of the past three years?
2.	Does the government exercise any supervision over the capital expenditures of the proprietary crown corporations?
3.	When making capital expenditures, are crown corporations required to take industrial decentralization into account and, if so, what precisely is their policy as to industrial decentralization?
4.	If not, does the government intend to issue directives to the said corporations ordering that they take industrial decentralization into account?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDIARIES OF PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	In what companies do proprietary crown corporations, within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act, own shares, and in what amounts?
2.	Who appoints the directors of the subsidiaries of the proprietary corporations?
3.	What is the share capital of these subsidiaries?
November 6, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
4.	What is the function of each of these subsidiaries?
5.	Are these subsidiaries subject to municipal, provincial and federal taxation?
6.	Who approves the operating and capital budgets of proprietary corporations?
7.	If a proprietary corporation wishes to establish a subsidiary or acquire shares, what authority is required?
Return tabled.


ESTABLISHMENT OF FOUNDRY IN QUEBEC
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	Has any member of the government or any government department or agency had any correspondence since May, 1963, with Becnet Foundries or Becnet Industries of Quebec concerning the planning, development or financing of a new foundry?
2.	Has any member of the government or any government department or agency had any correspondence since May, 1963, with Mr. James Doherty, Mr. Roy C. Bowes or Mr. Bernard Rider in respect to the planning, development or financing of a foundry in the province of Quebec?
3.	Has any member of the government or any government department or agency had any correspondence with the government of Quebec, officials or agencies since May, 1963, in respect to the planning development or financing of a foundry in the province of Quebec?
4.	Has any member of the government or any government department or agency had any correspondence with any member of the Quebec legislature since May, 1963, concerning the planning, development or financing of a foundry in the province of Quebec?
5.	Has any member of the government or any department or agency had any correspondence since May, 1963, with the government of Czechoslovakia or the firm of Skoda of Czechoslovakia concerning the planning, development or financing of a foundry at Louiseville in the province of Quebec?
6.	Did the premier of Quebec inform the federal government prior to June, 1966, that there would be a 200 ton a day foundry constructed at Louiseville, Quebec, to be completed by April, 1969?
7.	Is Louiseville, Quebec, within a designated area?
8.	Has the government of Canada or any of its agencies received any communications since May, 1963, from the United States government or United States corporations concerning a $9.69 million contract to Skoda of Czechoslovakia to supply engineering services and plant equipment to a new foundry that was to be constructed at Louiseville, Quebec, with the financial support of the federal government and the government of Quebec?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether the government has obtained from the Secretary of State the evidence of mismanagement within the C.B.C. to which the Secretary of State referred on Friday, and which she described as worse than the Glassco commission had referred to.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I would be pleased to take this question as notice, unless the Secretary of State would like to add anything.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I told the house on Friday, it was my intention to give this information-not, indeed, second hand from me as I have had it from others, but to bring together those who gave me the information and the new management.


Michael Starr: I would ask the Secretary of State whether she has given to the Prime Minister and to her other colleagues, the members of the government, the evidence of mismanagement to which she referred last Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Michael Starr: I should like to know whether the government has been informed of the details of which the hon. lady is aware, or whether she is keeping this a secret.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Ontario is reiterating the question he asked in the first instance. It may not have been answered, but it is still a reiteration of the question he asked.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was not answered simply because the hon. gentleman knows, having been a member of a cabinet, that it is not permitted to ask questions concerning conversations between privy councillors and their leader.


David Lewis: Would the hon. lady give consideration to making a statement to the house indicating the general area in which the misconduct, or misbehaviour, or whatever it may have been, occurred? Without necessarily specifying the people
November 6. 1967	COMMONS
involved, would she indicate the general area in which the "rotten management" occurred, for the benefit both of parliament and of the people so we may know what it was the Secretary of State learned about?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have thought about that for the last couple of days, but it is very difficult to pass on any of this information without doing one of two things, either pointing to the person or persons within the corporation to whom reference is made, or to the persons who have been the sources of information I have received. I feel that if I were to disclose the names of any of the sources-and here I must take an example from the fourth estate-no secretary of state hereafter would ever get any information about what was going on within the corporation. I do not, therefore, propose publicly to name any of these individuals, now or at any time.
I do not believe anything further can be gained from speculation about the individuals who are responsible, or who appear to be responsible, for some of the things I have already mentioned or described and, unless I am completely specific, to say anything more about it would narrow it down to some individuals but still touch those who might not be responsible.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Why did you
start it, then?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Any suggestion I started anything obviously shows only the ignorance of the man who said that, because the reports which this government and earlier governments have commissioned over the past few years have indicated exactly the same thing. It comes as some surprise to me that any member of this house who previously interested himself in this particular subject was surprised at the charge at all.


Mr. Nielsen:: It was a charge?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister, and ask him whether the government will accept the responsibility to act immediately to make public the allegations that were made, in order that any such management errors may be made public and speedily rectified.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything I can add at the moment to what the Secretary of State has said. She has taken this on in her responsibility as a
DEBATES	3923
Inquiries of the Ministry member of the government, and I do not think anything I could say would be useful.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, would the hon. gentleman prevail upon the Prime Minister to take part in the debate on the broadcasting bill which is before the house at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question should not be asked when the debate is under way later today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. With regard to the information which has come to the attention of the minister, not the information which appears in the Fowler report or any other report but the information which has come to her, which is strictly confidential and which, according to the minister, is worse than that in the Fowler report, may I ask if this information has been transmitted to Mr. Ouimet and the top management of the C.B.C.? If not, why has it not been brought to their attention so they might take some remedial action?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, I have not brought it to their attention, the reason being that I felt the only way it could be cleared up was by bringing it to the attention of the new management.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Secretary of State.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I agree with the Secretary of State's comments concerning the C.B.C., but I would like to know if she has answered the arrogance of the former president of the C.B.C., Mr. Alphonse Ouimet? Has the hon. minister answered his arrogant letter?


Mr. R. W. Priilie (Burnaby-Richmond):: As a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, further to her statement that this information would be turned over to the new heads of the C.B.C., can the minister inform the house whether the Prime Minister will announce the appointments of the new heads today, or some day later this week?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would think this is
dependent upon the passage of the legislation now before the house. Those appointments, I
November 6, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry understand, are to be made after the legislation has been dealt with in committee, has gone through the House of Commons and before it has passed the other place.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wished to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I would like to direct it to the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the house whether Canada has received overtures from the Soviet union for bilateral military contacts or co-operation, similar to arrangements between this country and France?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe the proper answer to that question is that there is no foundation for it.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Was an invitation received from the Russian government to send a senior military officer to Moscow to attend their fiftieth anniversary celebrations, and was Canada the only NATO country to receive such an invitation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my information is that no such invitation was extended to any Canadian officials.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister mean there was no invitation extended at all, contrary to what has been reported? He says there was no invitation to any officer, but did any general invitation come to the government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I cannot answer for other departments of the government, but so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned there was no invitation received.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING PROPOSED U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister but in his absence may I direct it to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the

Prime Minister's statement in Toronto on Saturday to the effect that if the United States follows through on trade restrictive proposals, Canada will have to re-examine the concessions which it granted at the Kennedy round talks in Geneva.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he or the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government generally have received any assurance from the United States government that all effective steps will be taken so there will be no restrictive proposals or any quotas imposed on Canadian goods, particularly those affected by the Kennedy round.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer that question by quoting the President of the United States himself. Addressing the Consumer Assembly in Washington he said:
I think those protectionist bills just must not become law. And they're not going to become law as long as I am president.
That is the best answer I can give to the question of whether we have received assurances on this matter, but may I add that there should be no doubt whatever in the minds of those in the United States who are advocating these restrictions on imports, in contravention of trade agreements, that such action would cause damage to the trade interests of the United States. Surely the United States, which has done so much to advance the cause of freer world trade, isn't going to withdraw into a policy of protectionism, a beggar thy neighbour policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether there will be sufficient flexibility in the legislation he is introducing which will give the governor in council not only power to postpone the implementation of the Kennedy round agreements but power to withdraw them in the event that any of the other signatories resort to import quotas which would nullify all the benefits of the Kennedy round agreements?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to give a categorical answer on the question of the law. I would have to refresh my memory, but I can assure my hon. friend that I will be looking at our law in the light of that possibility.


George Harris Hees: As a
supplementary question, in view of the fact that a majority two thirds vote in the United States congress can nullify the presidential
November 6, 19G7

veto, and therefore although President Johnson is determined that import quotas shall not be imposed congress can override him, would the government consider making representations to the United States that we will not lower tariffs on goods against which import quotas may be imposed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether that would be effective action, but what I do think is that we should be prepared to withhold concessions on imports into Canada of value to the United States if they do in fact withdraw concessions of value to us.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the evaluation made on October 13 by the United Nations conference on trade and development, UNTAD, that the Kennedy round "will contribute to a further decline in the relative share of the developing countries in world trade," what steps is the government taking to make sure that consideration is given to the position of the developing countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Kennedy round concessions are available to all countries of the world, the developing as well as the developed countries. The developing countries want to get additional concessions by way of special preferences, and that matter is under discussion in UNTAD.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did Canada and France last week conclude a bilateral agreement of co-operation in the establishment of programs for defence production, research and development?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this question be directed to the proper minister, who is the Minister of Defence Production.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I will direct it to the Minister of Industry in his capacity as Minister of Defence Production. Did Canada and France last week conclude a bilateral agreement of co-operation in the establishment of programs for defence production, research and development?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, did this agreement or accord arise within the framework of Canada's relationship with France under NATO, or is it a purely bilateral agreement arising out of, shall I say, our direct relations with France?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Unquestionably the fact that France is a member of NATO had some bearing on the negotiations leading to the agreement. It is in fact an agreement moving toward increased co-operation between Canada and France in the matter of research and development in the defence equipment field. It is bilateral rather than part of the general NATO agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a further supplementary question, would the minister be prepared to table a copy of this agreement at the earliest possible opportunity?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret, Mr. Speaker, this cannot be done, as it is in the field of defence equipment. As the hon. member will understand, a number of provisions are classified; consequently it will not be made public.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that France now has militarily withdrawn from NATO, and in view of the fact that there are reports that country has entered into a joint training scheme with the Soviet union, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what position Canada now is in in relation to the other NATO partners as a result of this treaty we have entered into with France.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I have said this particular agreement is not part of the NATO agreement; it is a separate bilateral agreement. We have separate bilateral agreements with other countries along similar lines. This does not necessarily have a direct relationship to the level or scale of French participation in NATO.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister understood the import of my question. I will rephrase it in a little different way. In view of the fact that France now is looked upon as somewhat of a security risk-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the general purport of the reports which have appeared in the newspapers.

November 6, 1967
Royal Assent


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that these supplementary questions are developing into a debate. The hon. member might ask the question directly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once more may I ask in
what position this leaves us in relation to the other members o 1 NATO, in view of the risks which may be involved in an exchange of military information, technology and weaponry with France.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think one could accept the premise of the hon. gentleman that France has suddenly become a security risk. In respect of all such agreements there are the usual considerations for the protection of national security in both the military and intelligence sense. This agreement makes such provision, and administrative arrangements have been made to take care of this.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister whether the other NATO allies were consulted before this agreement was signed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think our other NATO allies were aware of the discussions leading up to this agreement.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
An act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
An act to amend the Canada Corporations Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1968.
Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to inform the house that when the house did

attend His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, His Honour was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable senators, honourable members of the House of Commons:
We are assembled here today on an historic occasion to participate in an act which is rooted in tradition.
On this day, one hundred years ago, the first Governor General of Canada, Viscount Monck, opened the first session of the first parliament of the newly formed confederation. The new national capital had witnessed on July 1, 1867, a ceremony which was the culmination of the discussions that had taken place in Charlottetown and Quebec. Deliberations could now begin on bills which, in due course, would become the first statutes of Canada.
Federal union had been accomplished and the members of that first parliament were called upon to address their attention to the complex problems of nation building. A century later and in the midst of the twenty-seventh parliament, we reflect with gratitude and with justifiable pride on what has been achieved.
With courage, imagination and brawn, Canadians have come to grips with the challenge of geography and economics. Incredible distances have been spanned and the vast and rich resources of the land have been extensively developed. The problems of environment have obliged us to be preoccupied during the greater part of the past 100 years with physical needs, but recent years have witnessed a cultural explosion in Canada, bringing with it a flowering of creative talent.
We have many things to celebrate in this centennial year. Not the least of these is the effectiveness of our form of government. It is our good fortune and our proud boast that we in Canada enjoy a long heritage of freedom. Our democratic process is at once a recognition and a safeguard of the dignity of man.
The origins of parliament lie far in the past, but the process of law-making as we know it today was not realized at a single stroke. Successive generations struggled to gain a commanding voice in their own affairs and to bring an end to the exercise of arbitrary power. Our forefathers had a lively awareness of that struggle and the determination to preserve what had been so dearly won.
We inherited the institution of parliament from Great Britain but we have made it in all respects Canadian. Laws are passed "by and with the consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada" and take effect when formally assented to by the Governor General in his exercise of the power of the Sovereign. In recent years the post of Governor General has been filled by the appointment of Canadians. Thus, everything done in this land in the name of the Queen is done by Canadians at the behest of Canadians. The giving of royal assent to bills is not merely an ancient custom but an integral part of our own legislative process.
With the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada took her full place in the arena of world affairs and became one of the founding
November 6, 1967

members of the commonwealth. Within the framework of the commonwealth and in the greater family of nations, the example we offer of a half continent of people living and working together in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill does not pass unnoticed.
By resolving our problems in this manner and by diligently striving to bridge cultural and regional differences, we have succeeded where not a few societies in the past have failed. This experience has equipped Canadians to play an important and responsible role in healing the divisions among people everywhere.
Like all the institutions of men, parliamentary government is not without its imperfections. But it stands unchallenged as the most successful method of democracy. We share this great legacy with others, and this is as it should be, for the ideals and concepts which we cherish are not confined by national boundaries.
It has been said of democracy that it is "based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people." As the instrument of democracy parliament puts a corresponding faith in its individual members. This is a heavy responsibility which obliges you to put duty before personal ambition. Your compensation is the opportunity you have of service to your country and to the cause of freedom everywhere.
In marking, today, the hundredth anniversary of the opening of the first session of parliament, we are not only saluting a moment in history. We are recognizing, as well, the enduring significance of a whole way of life. It is in the nature of parliament that it mirrors the soul of a nation. It is no exaggeration to say that as parliament goes, so goes a people; as parliament projects the principles of the nation and the aspirations of its citizens, so are those principles preserved and those aspirations realized.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house concerning the reported theft from the Minto armouries at Winnipeg of seven complete machine guns and a quantity of ammunition and tell the house whether or not the report is accurate and what steps are being taken to ensure that arms and ammunition are kept safely by the members of the defence forces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no basic objection to the question asked by the hon. member but it seems to me that it has already been asked in the same terms last week by a few hon. members including the hon. member for Winnipeg South. However, if there is a new element in the question I have no objection to it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the new element is that the Minister of National Defence is present in the house and he was not the other day.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the question put by the hon. member, he asked me whether the report was correct. I wish to say to him that it is not quite accurate. The machine guns were stolen, as he said, and so were the blocks, but no ammunition was stolen. In so far as the accuracy of the report is concerned, I wish to say first of all that all this happened on the night of October 30. As was stated in the report, a casual reference to a possible invasion of the city by eastern criminals was made to the security officer. On hearing it he immediately doubled the patrols.


David Vaughan Pugh: Did he do that after the horse was gone?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, before.
Many of the circumstances of the theft appear to be peculiar. First of all, in order to have access to the particular area of the Minto armoury the thieves had to scale a high fence, saw off the bars on the windows and cut the chains which held the machine guns to the walls. This had to be done also in another place where the magazines were stored.
So far as security is concerned, let me say that in this case the normal security measures were taken which are usually taken in any armoury in Canada, and it is of course unfortunate that this particular theft took place. I might also say to my hon. friend that banks expect robberies to take place and they prepare for them; yet they do occur.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think what took place is slightly more important than the taking of money from a bank. Will the minister inform the house, not today necessarily but some time very soon, whether additional steps toward insuring greater security are being taken by the armed forces because, as he will recall, this incident is a repetition of thefts that occurred three years ago at which time the house was assured that adequate precautionary steps were being taken?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We are investigating the possibility of taking additional security measures. That is all I can say at the moment.
November 6, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH RAILWAY MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport a question which I put to him last Friday when he was not in the chamber. I do not know whether it has been drawn to his attention, but in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Westmorland in Moncton last Thursday night that the minister was going to make a statement with regard to changes in the freight tariffs of the C.N.R., would the minister inform the house what announcement he has to make, and if he cannot make it today when can we expect it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am still optimistic. I am not in a position to make a statement today but I am pressing on with this matter in the hope that I can make a statement within a very few days.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house whether this is a matter to be considered by him or his department, whether it is before the transport commission, or whether it is to be the subject matter of discussions between him and the railways?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that in cases such as this premature information is more likely to misinform than to inform. As soon as a decision has been taken I will be pleased to inform the house in the usual way.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question. If that is the case, can the minister inform the house whether or not the hon. member for Westmorland, when she made the statement, expressed policy which the minister had authorized her to express?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure how a statement made outside the house by the parliamentary secretary is relevant and can form the basis of a question, but I will allow the question asked by the hon. member for York South.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All the reports from the meeting indicated that the hon. member for Westmorland acquitted herself ably and capably, as I had predicted she would. I was also pleased to hear the hon. member say such nice things about her and I think they are

well justified. I can tell the hon. member that if her representations, which are persistent and meaningful, on behalf of the people of that area produce the results that I hope they will, my hon. friend will be pleased with the announcement when it is made.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the matter of lay-offs. Has a wire been received from the Canadian Railway Labour Executive Association referring to the job security agreements between the unions and railways, and is the minister prepared to see that the 90 days' notice clause therein is complied with in connection with the recent railway lay-ofls?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I received a telegram and indicated that the government of course, would insist that the terms of the agreement between the union and management be fulfilled and suggested that the procedures which are set out in the agreement be undertaken if there are violations, as the unions allege. On their part the railways allege there are no violations. This is the extent of the information available at the moment.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Following the disappointment caused to the railway employees by a new offer by the railways, providing for an 8 per cent increase over a three-year period, is it the intention of the minister to take the necessary measures to prevent any possible strike?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we always do everything we can and take those steps that are within our jurisdiction to prevent strikes, but it is not always possible to do so. However, whenever our good offices can be of service we try to make them available.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport
November 6, 1967

which relates to the question I asked the minister last Thursday concerning the threatened abrogation of the air agreement between The Netherlands and Canada. Has the minister any further information or details on the reported threat by the government of The Netherlands?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nothing that I think could add to the situation, Mr. Speaker. If there are further negotiations with The Netherlands government in this matter they will be conducted in the spirit of co-operation that has always existed between our two countries. I can tell my hon. friend that we will be as co-operative as we can within the framework in which these international agreements are made, which basically provides that the interests of Canada are protected equally with those of our friends and allies abroad.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, Has the government of The Netherlands in fact threatened to abrogate this air agreement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there have been indications that public statements have been made to this effect. I do not think I would wish to comment beyond that at the moment.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mariial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the hon. lady tell us if it is true that she has sent out Canada's silver medals to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and also to Mr. Rene Levesque for services rendered to Canada? I should like to know if that is true.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, centennial medals have been sent out, the first of these last week, to all Canadian civilians in the table of precedence for Canada and to all individuals in the federal public service for whom nominations have been received. They were also sent out where provincial nominations have been received for individuals in the provincial public services, education, the judiciary and municipal services.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am informed that this medal is to be worn on the left breast and will take precedence after any commemorative medals previously granted, such as the coronation medal, and before long service, good conduct or efficiency medals.
I know there has been some suggestion that perhaps the hon. member for Lapointe and other hon. members, notably provincial members, might not have been recipients of these medals, but the regulations provide that those to be honoured include those in the federal table of precedence. I am informed that this is in accord with the precedent some years earlier when Mr. Henri Bourassa was awarded a coronation medal. Since it did not meet his expressed political beliefs he returned it to the government and that option, of courses, is open to anyone who does not wish to receive this medal.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which relates to the public hearing by the Canadian Transport Commission into railway costing methods for proposed rail line abandonments. Will the minister give an assurance that all interested groups and individuals will have full opportunity to present arguments and briefs? To make this possible will the minister request the commission to hold at least one hearing in the west, where any curtailment of rail service will have the greatest adverse effect?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the commission that they will take the necessary steps to see that all points of view are adequately expressed and represented before them. I cannot recall whether this included the possibility of holding hearings in the west. I suspect it did, but I will certainly bring this suggestion to the attention of the president of the commission.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Following the completion of this inquiry into the cost accounting techniques, as suggested by the minister in his current press release, will the minister assure the house that the standing committee on transport and communications will be
November 6, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry called together to review the recommendations of the inquiry before any of the suggestions are incorporated into amendments to the present legislation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr Speaker, I am not in a position to give that assurance as the standing committee is a creature of the house. However, I am sure that if it wished to review the final order there would be no reason it could not do so. I hope that by the time the commission has completed its hearings everyone will be satisfied with the decisions that are taken.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on what seemed to me to be a matter of importance in the international field, but instead I will address it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Did King Hussein of Jordan present to representatives of the Canadian government, as he is said to have done to western diplomats, an offer to recognize the right of all in the Middle East, including Israel, to live in peace and security? Did King Hussein also state that President Nasser of the United Arab Republic was ready to grant Israel free maritime access to the Suez canal and gulf of Aqaba if the right conditions were reached through a general settlement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs might wish to comment on this question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report in the newspaper of King Hussein's statement, which I think was made in a television interview, but no such offer or proposal has been made to the government of Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this proposal to a settlement in the Middle East and the reported further statement by King Hussein about the urgency of a political solution, probably at the level of the security council, within a very short space of time, will the Canadian government make inquiries into this matter and, if deemed advisable, bring it to the security council?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will be aware that the government has been pursuing very actively indeed any useful means to secure peace in the Middle East. In so far as the proposal of King Hussein is useful and can be followed up, it will be.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Northwest Territories legislative council sits next Monday, and in order to give its members sufficient time to study legislation to come before that body, will the minister now announce the appointments of the four members who are still to be named, if they have not already been, to the council?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that I would have expected to hear from behind me instead of from the other side of the bouse. I know the hon. member's fears will be allayed when I tell him that those who are going to be appointed have already been alerted.


Erik Nielsen: Is the minister prepared to announce the names of those who have been appointed to this legislative body?


Arthur Laing: No, sir, not today.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had any discussions with Secretary McNamara or any defence officials of the United States with regard to the announcement of the secretary last week of a Soviet orbital space bomb?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have had no particular conversation with regard to this subject but I can say that we were briefed some time ago on this possible development. Some
November 6, 19G7	COMMONS
of our officials who actually share the command in the NORAD organization were aware of this possible development.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question. Is the government making any study of the implications of this development as it affects Canada-United States defence policy?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course we are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the minister or any of his officials are sitting in with United States officials on discussions with regard to the planning of the anti-ballistic missile screen which the United States is now proposing to construct?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not just now, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said "Not just now". Have they been invited to participate in any such discussion and are they planning to participate in any such discussion?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: To my knowledge, we have not been invited and I do not think we plan to attend. When I said, "Not just now", I meant that remark to refer to the orbital system. Some months ago we received an intelligence report in which the possibility of the existence of such a system was referred to. It is in that context that my remarks should be viewed. We were made aware of the possibility of such a system many months ago.


AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Carlier-La-salle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inquire into charges made by the city of Lachine that Air Canada at Dorval airport dumped 300 gallons of phenol into lake St. Louis on October 23, causing serious pollution and making the drinking water of the inhabitants of the area taste bad? Would the minister also inquire about the number of times Air Canada has poured industrial waste into the pluvial sewer which drains into lake St. Louis via the Bouchard river?
DEBATES	3931
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which I assume has been noted by the minister. As he is referring to something which apparently happened some weeks ago, I wonder whether the question is urgent today.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the fact that when we were in the other place a short while ago the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor Gen-earl delivered a speech from the throne, will the government be presenting a motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, will there be a debate on it and will it be subject to the usual amendments and motions of non-confidence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not if we can avoid it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to be courteous enough to thank the Deputy of His Excellency for his gracious speech?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he clarify a statement he made at the University of Toronto last Friday? In his remarks the minister advised students to be careful of becoming overly moral with respect to the war in Viet Nam.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I finish? I am just coming to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind her that when referring to statements made outside the house she may inquire of the Prime Minister only whether such statements represent government policy. The hon. member may frame her question in that way.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I try again, Mr. Speaker.

November 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is the Acting Prime Minister at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can
the Acting Prime Minister say, since in his speech to the students at the University of Toronto he said that part of their university education is paid for from proceeds of the sale of Canadian goods including arms to the United States, some of which have been used in Viet Nam, whether the government considers it wrong for students to protest against this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not proper, and is not acceptable to the Chair.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since this country has sent an increasing amount of war material to the United States and since that material has been used partly in the escalating war in Viet Nam, does the government plan to increase its financial aid for higher education? I ask that question because these two matters seem to have some relationship in the mind of the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the question asked by the hon. member is of a general nature, I think it is out of order. I do not think it can be answered at this time of day during the question period. I suggest to the hon. member that if a statement is made on motions he can make his remarks at that time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Is it in order to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is going to make a statement with respect to the subject matter of his remarks before the students of the University of Toronto?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making such a statement. My advice to the hon. lady who raised this subject in the first instance -I see she is not here-is not to take too seriously everything she reads in newspapers. I could be glad to discuss with my hon. friend what I actually said and the context in which I said it. There was a wonderful exchange of words with a great group of young students, and I enjoyed the occasion thoroughly.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government house leader in his capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister use his good offices to make the one hundredth anniversary of parliament's first meeting a truly memorable occasion for the senior citizens of our country by providing them with a bonus of $100 each for this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw that suggestion to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How unkind can you be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How naive.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader. To allow the opposition to plan its work in advance, can the government house leader say what business the house will be expected to discuss tomorrow and for the next few days after that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if we complete second reading of the broadcasting bill today we shall take second reading of the capital punishment bill tomorrow and continue with that for several days. Later in the day I shall be better able to judge what tomorrow's business will be. Much will depend on whether we complete second reading of the broadcasting bill by the end of the day.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I direct another question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he use his good offices with the chairman of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration to have that committee meet at the earliest opportunity? Will he also refer to the committee the report "Indians and the Law" which was prepared for his department by the Canadian Corrections Association?
November 6, 1967	COMMONS


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the chairman of the Indian affairs committee. We hope to see that committee set up soon. I wish to obtain an assessment of the report "Indians and the Law" before referring the report to the committee.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 3, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago when Bill No. C-163 was first introduced I read its provisions carefully. I am sure most other hon. members of the house also did so. With some of its provisions I could not disagree; others, I am afraid, gave me pause for thought.
There has been much talk in this country about whether parliament should continue to allow the existence of the crown corporation known as the C.B.C. or whether we should turn all broadcasting over to private interests. Some suggest that private interests could do a better and more efficient job in the broadcasting field than the C.B.C. could.
To do so, of course, would be to turn against the views of the broadcasting committee which stated that a distinctive Canadian broadcasting system was "essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century", and went on to say that broadcasting might well be regarded as the central nervous system of Canadian nationhood. Although the report does not spell it out, it clearly indicates a desire for the continuance of a national broadcasting system such as the C.B.C. If, therefore, we decide that the C.B.C. should continue-and the bill before us certainly makes this clear-then it is our duty in parliament to try to fashion a bill which will provide adequate direction for those in the broadcasting field together with adequate protection of the public who are, after all, our primary concern.
This is a serious and important task, one which we in the opposition have approached with a concern no less great than that professed by the minister. We do not, of course,
DEBATES	3933
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting necessarily agree with every provision contained in the bill. My hon. friends, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), have eloquently expressed some of our doubts and fears with regard to it. But we have offered our criticism in an attempt to improve the measure, to make it a better instrument with which to serve the public in the vital field of broadcasting.
I can assure the minister it was with these aims in mind that proposals have been advanced to have this bill considered in the standing committee on broadcasting prior to second reading. We feel this is a worth-while aim and in this connection I believe it would be useful to refer to what was said by my hon. friend from Royal when he spoke on this bill, as reported at pages 3760 and 3761 of Hansard.
I believe this bill should go back to the parliamentary committee because in so many ways it differs from the report of the special committee. Here I should like to suggest, and I do so quite sincerely, that it be sent to committee before approval in principle. The committee has the competence and ability, I say with respect, to improve this bill and make it a more democratic evocation of what the policy of the government should be. I think it would be a landmark in the long and perilous journey toward parliamentary reform if the Secretary of State would agree that what I suggest is an imaginative and proper procedure. If we really mean the parliamentary committee system to be effective, the minister will jump to accept this suggestion. I assure her that it is not a delaying tactic; it is a reforming tactic. It is not a device to kill the bill; it is a genuine attempt to use the latent talent and experience of parliamentarians for the improvement of the bill at an early stage of its passage through the house.
This we in the opposition sincerely believe, and the disturbing events of the past few days have been a powerful force in underlining and reinforcing our suggestion.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not read a second time until the subject matter of the bill has been referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for review and until the committee has reported to the house."
This amendment has been necessitated by the incredible spectacle of the past few days. On the one hand we see the minister making charges of "rotten management" in the C.B.C. and on the other we find the president of that corporation demanding that the minister substantiate the serious charges she has made against management. Strangely enough,
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting even as the minister is making her charges the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the government, is publicly praising the C.B.C. for the excellent job it has done. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the president of the C.B.C voluntarily resigned over a year ago but was urged to stay on by this same government.
Here we have a situation where a minister in charge of a crown corporation is being challenged, most unwisely, I believe, by a man who is responsible not just for the C.B.C. but to the minister herself and through her to the parliament of Canada. It is clear that the minister herself has been most unwise in the type of blanket charges she has made, particularly since she has not specified those charges for the information of those to whom she is responsible, not the management of the C.B.C. but the parliament of Canada and, through its members, the people of Canada.
I was astonished, as were many other hon. members, to hear her say in reply to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) the other day: "It could be no secret to anyone who knew anything about broadcasting that there was a problem of management." I agree with that. Then the minister went on: "But what I learned about in the past few weeks was very much worse than that." It is the last part which concerns us most. What are these unknown things which the minister has learned about in the past few weeks? Surely we in this parliament as well as the people of Canada have a right to know. On behalf of the people of Canada this parliament provides more than $160 million annually for the C.B.C. and I believe our people have an inalienable right to know how their money is being spent.
Perhaps the minister spoke out of sheer frustration the other day. It is surely clear that all the blame for this unsavoury situation cannot be laid at her doorstep. It is the Prime Minister who has continually frustrated attempts to name a new head of the C.B.C. and who has continually expressed views directly opposed to those of the Secretary of State, making her position at times untenable. The Secretary of State may have been indiscreet but there are many people in Canada who believe that at least she was honest in what she said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I would commend that particular view to members of the press gallery.

How can we in this context hope to understand or improve the bill before us unless we have an opportunity to hear the full story as it should be placed before members of the standing committee on broadcasting? It is for this reason I have moved my amendment and I urge the house to give it consideration realizing that on this side we are totally sincere in our efforts to expand and improve the legislation before us. I repeat that by this manoeuvre we have no intention of trying to kill the bill. But we cannot do a proper job until we know what the facts are, and this will be one of the results of bringing the bill before the committee prior to second reading.
While hon. members are studying the amendment, perhaps I may make a few of the remarks I had intended to make prior to the occurrences of the last few days. When the Prime Minister finally answered my question regarding C.B.C. coverage in Saskatoon the reaction of the citizens of that city was entirely predictable. The Saskatoon Board of Trade, through its commissioner, Mr. Bert Saltoum, said it was inconceivable that the federal government should shelve the plans and expressed extreme disappointment about the decision.
* (5:10 p.m.)
As reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 2 he said:
In the light of all the facts, the board cannot understand the government decision. It notes that the longer the project is delayed the more it will cost when eventually built.
The report continued:
Mr. Salloum said a cut-back on government spending was carried on on this project until the freeze was lifted last year and the C.B.C. applied to the Board of Broadcast Governors for the Saskatoon station. "The B.B.G. approved the application and since then the matter has been awaiting cabinet approval."
"Saskatoon, it was said, would have a second television outlet by the fall of 1968?
The article went on to quote a statement made by the minister in charge of the C.B.C. in which she said:
I concur that a proposed C.B.C. television outlet for Saskatoon is of critical importance and I can assure you that utmost consideration is being given to it.
Commissioner Salloum added:
In the light of all the facts, we cannot understand the government decision.
The mayor of our city, Sidney Buckwold, also got into the act and, as reported in the
November 6, 1967

article, termed the postponement of the C.B.C. station "shameful." He said:
I fully appreciate the financial problems of the federal government, but I believe it is shameful that this project, promised by the C.B.C. to the citizens of Saskatoon for several years, should be postponed.
The report continued:
He said a second television station in the city is urgently needed and the general reaction of the public has indicated a preference for a full C.B.C. station.
There are many other comments by people from my city. There is no question but that the people of Saskatoon want alternative service. When we consider that they pay the same amount of taxes as any other region of Canada for support of the C.B.C., we believe they should be entitled to alternative coverage, the same as is now being received by many other cities of comparable size in Canada.
We believe it is mandatory that the government should reconsider its decision and at least as a temporary measure provide alternative service by a C.B.C. transmitter without studio facilities or allow private broadcasting to fill the void that will be left by this decision of the government. The decision to cancel the station is another example of how the leader of the government has frustrated the wishes of the minister in charge. It flies in the face of the recommendation in the white paper on broadcasting, and in the report of the committee on broadcasting which on page 9 reads as follows:
We recommend ... wherever practical, in areas now receiving only one Canadian service, if the service is through a private outlet, the alternative should be provided by C.B.C. If C.B.C. is now the sole service, the second service should be private.
Then there appears this significant sentence:
Where there are serious obstacles to such parallel development, however, these should not prohibit the extension of alternate service by other means, at least on a temporary basis.
This is the recommendation of the committee that we would like to see invoked.
At present there are rumours going around in the city of Saskatoon about the premier of Saskatchewan having visited the Prime Minister just before this announcement was made. It is being said that he discussed and made some sort of arrangement to allow a private station in Saskatchewan, incidentally a station which has some feeling for the present government, to put a satellite in the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Saskatoon area, thus helping the private station out of an uneconomic situation. It is up to the government to kill this type of rumour before it gains too much credence in the minds of the people in the city I represent.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could be permitted to make a few general remarks about some other facets of the bill before us. The white paper issued in 1966 stated one of the objectives of the C.B.C. as follows:
The determination to develop and maintain a national system of radio and t.v. broadcasting in Canada as an essential part of the continuing resolve for Canadian identity and Canadian unity.
The report of the broadcasting committee in March, 1967, put it similarly but in different words which I quoted earlier, namely:
A distinctively Canadian broadcasting system is essential to our national identity, unity and vitality in our second century.
Speaking personally, I am happy to see that the bill before us agrees with these two proposals, but I say that I will support this concept only as long as the private sector of broadcasting is also fully available to every Canadian. I will support it so long as those areas not presently covered by the C.B.C. will receive C.B.C. service. I will support it so long as the provisions in this bill are meaningful so far as the full and varied use of Canadian talent-writers, producers, actors and so on-is concerned. I will support it so long as it is truly Canadian and so long as its prime objective is the fostering not only of a distinctive Canadianism but also the encouragement of those Canadians involved in the arts.
The C.B.C. should be an instrument not of propaganda but of education. I must confess that I share the deep concern of the hon. member for Yukon when he referred to that clause in the bill which gives the cabinet power to pre-empt any program and broadcast any other program that either the executive committee or the governor in council deems to be of special significance to Canadians generally. The minister has said, and I note that the distinguished advocate from York South has also said, that the government would never take advantage of this provision for propaganda purposes. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then this clause should not be in the bill at all.
A truly distinctive Canadian broadcasting system should be an instrument not only of entertainment but of enlightenment. It should be a means of communication between various regions to promote better understanding between them. It should not become the agent of
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting any one group seeking to promote its views and its views alone. Rather, it should be the means to provide stimulating and thought-provoking discussion.
It should be a cohesive factor in Canadian life. Earlier I quoted the aim of a national system of radio and television, and in this regard may I say that unity should be the result of a good broadcasting policy on the part of a viable C.B.C. and should not be a means to an end. The C.B.C. should not be used as an instrument to forge unity. Rather, as it helps one region of Canada to understand the others better, as it helps one racial group to understand and appreciate others, it will have done its work well and will have helped immeasurably in forging a united Canada, proud of its different origins and confident despite its diversity.
Presuming that we accept the above premises, certain other consequences become apparent. I have mentioned some of them previously. First, to achieve such lofty aims C.B.C. radio and television must reach every citizen in our country and, as I pointed out before, this is not yet a reality. Consequently the C.B.C. must have sufficient funds in order to provide the kind of service required. It is meaningless to put these words on paper and then not provide the means to give the type of service we hope to see.
The C.B.C. must also have sufficient flexibility and stability in regard to the moneys appropriated to allow meaningful, long-range planning. But it must also be responsible to the people of Canada and the parliament of Canada who provide the money with which it operates. At the same time authority must be permitted to allow good corporate management with the proviso that artistic freedom be given prominence, because only in this way can the C.B.C. mature and its influence increase. As I said before, allowing the C.B.C. to be used as an instrument of propaganda for any pressure group is to be mentioned only to be condemned.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer once more to the amendment I have placed before the house. Once again I ask hon. members on both sides to consider how we in the official opposition view this amendment. Certain allegations have been made by the minister. Counter-charges have been hurled back by the C.B.C. This unseemly situation must not be allowed to continue.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I have said before, it is the right of every taxpayer in this country to know

exactly how the money provided to the C.B.C. is being spent by it. If the minister feels that her responsibility is to the management of the C.B.C. only, then I must in all honesty say that I disagree most heartily with this concept. It is the members of this house and the people of Canada who should know what is rotten in the management of the C.B.C. As parliamentarians, before we discuss the bill and before we propose amendments as the minister has invited us to do, we must know what is going on.
In the last few weeks factors have come to light which we did not have an opportunity to discuss in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. In many ways this is a new kettle of fish. We must have an opportunity to hear what these charges are. The Canadian people must know what the charges are. When we have this information we would hope to be able to come up then with a bill that will provide for the Canadian nation the type of guidance and control that all of us would like to see in this vital area of broadcasting which affects every facet of Canadian life.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon is placed before the house I should like to say I have had an opportunity to look at it from a procedural standpoint. I would certainly appreciate having the views of hon. members in respect of whether this amendment in its exact form is acceptable from the procedural standpoint.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have raised this point because it provides a very useful opportunity, both in respect of this bill and the general practice, to deal with this matter. As Your Honour is aware, I believe there is ample precedent in the customs and practices of this house for the moving of the type of amendment by which the subject matter of a bill may be referred to a committee before second reading. I believe it is perfectly proper to move such a motion.
It is true we have changed what in the past has been the formal wording of such an amendment. At this time, however, when so much is being said about the reform of parliament I think we should be free, when we the members of the house and Your Honour see an opportunity to change the substantive practice of the house, to seek out ways and means by which we can make our motion conform to what is the intent of hon. members. I submit there should not be a continued slavish adherence to a certain type of
November 6, 1967

form which might have been acceptable to a Speaker generations ago.
In his amendment the hon. member for Saskatoon is suggesting that there should be a condition attached to the second reading of this bill. Instead of saying, as has been the custom in the past, that the bill be not now read a second time and that the subject matter be referred to a committee, he is saying that the bill be not read a second time until this condition has been fulfilled. In each case precisely the same result would be achieved. Since hon. members on this side, and I assume many other hon. members, feel that a real issue has arisen which should be considered in view of the fact that it arose since the bill first was presented for second reading, we believe hon. members should have the right, either by themselves if they are not members of the committee or through their colleagues who are members of the committee, to make a thorough and searching inquiry into certain aspects of the bill.
Unfortunately, as we all know, too often it becomes necessary for members of the opposition to move a motion of this type because they seek valid and important information before being placed in the position where they must vote either yea or nay on a bill of this kind. This is precisely the reason we are doing this today. I should like to say that originally, upon reading the bill and listening to the presentations of the first several hon. members who spoke, I felt that in committee of the whole I would have an opportunity to discuss the many specific aspects of the bill. I could see no valid objection to the broad principle that there should be a continuation of the private and public sectors and that there should be a regulatory board which would have certain rights with regard to both the public and private sectors. Now, however, because of what has arisen over the week end I am in the position, as I am sure many other members of the house are, that I should like to know, before I am called upon to vote yea or nay on second reading, what the facts are which have been the subject of this controversy. Because of what has occurred there may be clauses in this bill to which we would take serious objection.
The hon. member for Saskatoon in his very thorough and articulate contribution has outlined the views of this party in this regard. In addition, I am giving my own view. Despite the interpretation which may have been placed upon the general rules, conditions and precedents of the past, I urge Your Honour to bear in mind that through

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this motion we seek not to kill this bill but rather to have before the second reading stage the type of examination which the circumstances now make inevitable and imperative. Although there is no real difference between the words "that this bill be not now read a second time and the subject matter be referred to a committee" and the words "that this bill be not read a second time until the subject matter has been referred to a committee", we believe that the second version more clearly and precisely indicates the purview of this party. Surely it should be the right of a party or an individual to move an amendment which corresponds to the point of view he is attempting to place before the house.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in large measure in agreement with the very laudable points the hon. member for Peace River has drawn to the attention of the house. However, I think he overlooked one very important consideration. Everything he wants members to have the privilege of doing by way of amending the bill, changing it or improving it, if that is their point of view, can be done in committee of the whole house or, indeed, can be done if the house decides to refer this bill to the standing committee after it has received second reading. In the meantime we have the rules of this house and precedents which, until they are changed, we are obliged to follow.
Let me also say to the hon. member for Peace River that while there are some changes which may be new in dealing with bills of this type on second reading, I am sure Your Honour and the hon. member are aware of the substantial reasons for having the house accept a bill in principle before amendments are made and before it is referred to a committee. Unless the house has given approval in principle there is really no determination that it wishes either a standing committee or the committee of the whole to give further consideration to the bill's specific provisions.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question in relation to the statement he has just made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer Your Honour to citation 386 of Beauchesne, fourth edition,
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting where reference is made to the second reading of a bill. It states:
... the house may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission although the bill could not be referred to a committee of the house before its second reading.
Later in this same citation we find the following in paragraph 3 on page 278:
The house cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice.
In that case the amendment was lost.
The argument advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon was to the effect that while he did not want to kill the bill he wanted to refer parts of it or all of it to a committee before it received approval in principle in the house. That is clearly in contradiction of what is set out in citation 386. Citation 389 states in part:
A motion opposing the second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee.
The argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River was such that anything he suggests should be done could in fact be done in the committee. There are no prohibitions to what any member can move in regard to any part of a bill before the standing committee or the committee of the whole. However, it is very clear that we must not anticipate these amendments and seek to inject them before approval in principle is given.
I should also like to draw Your Honour's attention to citation 394 at page 281 which deals with some of the prohibitions in respect of a bill at this stage. It says in the first paragraph:
Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
I do not have a copy of the amendment but I think it suggests that we should not proceed with second reading until the subject matter has been referred to a standing committee. This is an attempt to attach a condition to second reading of the bill. The citations are clear in this regard, and I could quote them at length, that on second reading the house is obliged to vote on the principle of the bill. Hon. members should vote for that principle or oppose it, but they may not attach conditions to any specific part or the whole of the bill.

Without going into this matter at length by quoting other citations, I suggest that the amendment is out of order by reason of the fact it attempts to attach a condition before the bill has been accepted in principle by the house.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat whether the logic he has enunciated today in opposition to the amendment is the same logic he enunciated during this session when he was on this side of the house and wanted the transport bill referred to a committee before approval on second reading?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in reply let me suggest that logic remains logic no matter where it comes from in this house.


An hon. Member:: You have changed since you moved.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat whether he would agree that the amendment would be in order had it been couched in the traditional words, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps I should not use the word "suspect" in this house, but I believe the subtle change in wording is intended to circumvent the result of this house carrying this kind of amendment. It is a well-known fact that when such an amendment is carried it is tantamount to killing the bill. Apparently the opposition does not want that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, one point was alluded to by the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Peace River which I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat misunderstood. We have a very unique situation here which has not arisen for some considerable period of time, if ever before. Hon. members are being asked to vote on second reading which involves approving the principle of the bill. The bill is the result of lengthy hearings of the broadcast committee and discussions elsewhere. After the bill was presented to the house a unique situation developed. The minister responsible to the house for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made serious allegations against the corporation. She has refused to answer questions or provide the house with information regarding those allegations which were made after the house was asked to accept this bill in principle. If the government continues to deny access to this information, how then
November 6, 1967	COMMONS
can hon. members approve the bill in principle? If we had this information the views of hon. members might perhaps be very different with regard to the principle of the bill. I draw Your Honour's attention to this unique situation with the assurance that you will give it consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice and interesting comments.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As hon. members know, this point is very often raised when hon. members from either side of the house have doubts whether they should vote for or against a bill and would like to see the bill referred to a committee before second reading is given. In such instances it has been suggested at times that the bill itself should be referred to a committee.
We have had numerous rulings over 100 years up to today to the effect that this cannot be done. I remember that just a few months ago when the same thing was attempted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he argued somewhat along the same lines as the hon. member for Peace River has argued today, namely, that our procedures should be changed, that this is the time to do it, and therefore Mr. Speaker should disregard the precedents, make law and send the house on a new course. Even on the one hundredth anniversary of the first day of the first session of the parliament of Canada I am not disposed to follow this advice.


An hon. Member:: Be a pioneer.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that the rules are very clear and hon. members can do one of two things. They can vote for or against the principle of the bill. Hon. members are at liberty to make a motion exactly in the words mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River when he asked a question of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that is, that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee. This would be in order.
Citation 386 of Beauchesne, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and other hon. members, is clear on the point. This citation says:
On the second reading of a bill, the house may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission although the bill could not be referred to a committee of the house before its second reading.
DEBATES	3939
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
In the last part of citation 386 (3) it is said:
The house cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice. The amendment was ruled out.
Without going into too many details on the matter, I am sure the hon. member for Peace River will recognize the difficulty which faces the Chair at this time. Although I have every possible sympathy with the intention of the hon. member for Saskatoon, I do not think the precedents allow the Chair to make an exception to the rules that have existed for so long. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment in its present form.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the matter proceeds I should like to ask the house leader and the minister whether, in view of the very serious and grave doubt raised and the very valid issue involved, they would consider giving unanimous consent to an amendment in this form being moved so that the house may be tested on it. I ask them to consider this request so we may obtain from the house an expression of opinion on this issue despite the ruling of the Chair. I am not trying to circumvent Your Honour's ruling, which I accept, but I wonder whether in this way we could test the house on the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, as one of the assistants in drafting the amendment I should like to say that I thought we would get the co-operation of the hon. member for Medicine Hat who is so anxious to reform the House of Commons. In addition, of course, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is similarly attuned to the present. I think the suggestion of my colleague is a way around the difficulty so that the Speaker will not have to strike out on a new course and establish precedents but rather that the house in a unique situation will give unanimous consent to adopting what is really a forward-looking move to improve the procedures of parliament and the use of its committees.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no reaction from the government benches on this point of order, so I wonder whether as an alternative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that there is a point of order. I think the Chair showed some leniency in allowing the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting pose the question in the form of a point of order when it is obviously not a point of order but a substantive question. I think we should continue with the debate unless the house is ready for the question.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words at this stage in the study of the broadcasting bill.
Contrary to what has been said on both sides of the house since the beginning of this debate, I do not intend to criticize or praise the C.B.C. I think that others have seen to it up to now, and I want to deal with another subject.
Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, more exactly on November 23, 1966, I said this in the house:
For three years, I have been trying to obtain the extension of a television network on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence, that is, east of Seven Islands, and unfortunately my efforts have been unsuccessful up to now.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say now that with the support of the hon. minister responsible for the C.B.C. to this house, my efforts were successful: a few weeks ago, the setting up of a TV station, that is a "frontier package" was authorized at Havre St. Pierre.
First of all, I wish to thank the hon. minister, in spite of what was said in this house the other day, and tell her how much this is appreciated. I now speak on behalf of my electors.


Martial Asselin: It is the C.B.C.


Gustave Blouin: I know it is the C.B.C., but what I want to say, for the guidance of the hon. member for Charlevoix, is that the hon. minister, I know, supported my efforts and that is why we now have a television station, a "frontier package", at Havre St. Pierre.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Does he admit that the minister has the right to influence politically the C.B.C.?


Gustave Blouin: I am pleased to answer my hon. friend and point out that we are not dealing with a political influence, but with the extension of the system on the north shore to serve remote places which have no means of communication, and when the minister gave her approval, or in co-operation

with the C.B.C. management gave that authorization, she did not mention-and neither did I-the political allegiance of my constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gustave Blouin: She acted for the community and I would like to express my full appreciation for what has been done.
A little further, on the same day, I said:
Members have often spoken in the house of education and cultural affairs, and I know that considerable amounts were voted for cultural affairs. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that television must nowadays be available to all citizens of Canada and that it must be used also in the field of education and cultural affairs.
Moreover, I quote the following from a brief presented to the parliamentary committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts:
We believe it is extremely important to assert strongly, first of all, that all the countries in the world know that it is neither possible nor practical to choose between education of children and education of adults as far as development is concerned and, secondly, that the main participant in educational television is surely the adult student, in his home.
That is one of the reasons why authorization was given for the building of this television station, and I insist on that because, contrary to what my hon. friend thinks, it is more a matter of education and cultural affairs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to tell the house that the work is not completed because the north shore that I represent-I repeat it again-is the largest riding in Canada, with the exception of that of my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories, and there is still a lot to do to extend television coverage to Blanc-Sablon and the Belle Isle strait. I received recently from the manager of the municipality of the lower north shore, which is made up of twenty-two villages on a distance of 500 miles, a resolution which pressed for the extension of the French and English television service to Blanc-Sablon. I therefore hope that with the good offices of the minister, who is listening to me right now, and those of her parliamentary secretary (Mr. Bechard), efforts to secure the extension of that service will be continued.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would also like to congratulate the chairman, the vice-chairman and all the members of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts who have spent many hours working on
November 6, 1967

this matter. I know that they heard many witnesses during the hearings, that they did a lot of work, and I take this opportunity to congratulate them.
Again I would like to insist on the extension of this network. I have been given to understand that, possibly in the very near future, the minister might have the occasion to visit the area; at that time, she will be able to see for herself how vast it is and the urgent need for a television network serving those isolated communities.
I do not intend to dwell at length on this point, since we shall have the opportunity, I am sure, to take up this discussion again.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) for having succeeded in getting the extension of the network to his area, and this should be of service to his constituents. As a matter of fact, I am tempted to ask him to intercede with the minister on my behalf, in order to get a similar extension on the north shore of the Charlevoix constituency up to Tadoussac, because I have been making representations to the C.B.C. for several months and asking to correct what I call an unfair treatment not only for some areas of the province of Quebec, but for other areas also, such as my own constituency.
In some municipalities the citizens have to pay a fee as high as $100 to get the public TV broadcasts.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to my hon. friend?
Has he ever asked the minister to support his requests?


Martial Asselin: I do not have to apply to the minister, because the hon. member knows quite well that the minister can only act as the spokesman of the C.B.C. in the house and that she cannot take part in the decisions of the C.B.C.
I find it strange that hon. members are trying to make us believe today that the minister can take a decision for the C.B.C.
If one understands the spirit of the act-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question? Before concluding that part of his speech I wonder whether he would like to have a discussion with an hon. member on his side of the house, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Simpson), on whether or not on certain occasions it is possible to ask the C.B.C. to use new means to reach outlying districts? Obviously the minister cannot and would not intrude on strictly political lines but in some instances it has been possible for the minister to persuade the C.B.C. to be somewhat more flexible in its attitude in regard to engineering and thus getting service to people. I think my hon. friend will find that his colleague from Churchill has no criticism of the government in this regard.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I did not know the hon. minister had so much influence over the C.B.C. If such is the case, I want to ask her right now to approach the authorities of the C.B.C. and ask them to extend the TV network to the riding of Charlevoix and the surrounding areas.
Of course, the minister may leave her post in the near future and may therefore not have the pleasure of doing me that good turn, but in case she should stay in office as minister responsible or spokesman for the C.B.C. to the house, I ask her-I hope she is making notes-to ask the officials of the C.B.C. to look into the matter seriously as concerns the riding of Charlevoix with a view to doing away with what I called discrimination a while ago.
The people back home pay their taxes just like people do in Toronto, in Montreal and in Vancouver. Those people are entitled to benefit from the services of	public
broadcasting.
When the C.B.C. undertook, as it were, to set up a colour television system, I stated that there were other priorities and before spending so much money to develop colour television in Canada, it would have been advisable in the first place to serve remote centres, in order to enable all taxpayers to benefit from that broadcasting service.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather),
3942	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Health and Welfare-representations respecting cigarette advertising and smoking education; the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), National Defence-use of reserve officers as language instructors; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), Pollution-request for committee consideration of proposed legislation.
I understand there is some disposition on the part of the house to suspend private members' hour. Is it agreed that private members' hour shall be suspended today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will
resume its work at eight o'clock. I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other	consequential and related
provisions.
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, when we rose I was asking the minister's help in convincing the authorities of the C.B.C. to build in my constituency a satellite station that could rebroadcast the signal to every voter in my constituency. As a matter of fact, the minister should know, if she does not and the people in C.B.C. should also know, that several municipalities of my constituency are served by a community cable which is excessively expensive to receive the signals of a private television station. Now, as the minister indicated a while ago, she might wield a certain influence and enjoy some prestige with the administration of the C.B.C. So I ask her to use the prestige she has shown for the hon. member for Saguenay so that the people of my constituency may receive the signal from the C.B.C. and have the broadcasting services to which they are entitled.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
DEBATES	November 6, 1967
I noted in my intervention that the people at home are paying the same taxes as the other citizens of Canada and that they should not be penalized by being forced to receive the signal of a private station, the owners of which charge hundreds of dollars yearly, to have the C.B.C. television service.
As the minister has already stated when she introduced the bill in the house, the air waves belong to the whole community, they are part of the common wealth of the Canadian people and I believe that I am justified as the representative of a constituency removed from the large centres to intervene and to demand of the authorities of the C.B.C. that their services be extended at the earliest possible moment so as to avoid discriminating against a population far removed from the major centres.
Mr. Speaker, if I take part in this discussion today it is naturally to refer to the statements and charges by the minister against the administration of the C.B.C. We, on this side of the house, have repeatedly asked the minister for details about the charges against the leadership and administration of the C.B.C. And as representatives of the electors of the province of Quebec, we are somewhat concerned over the way the minister worded her charges against the C.B.C.-particularly when we realize that the C.B.C. is under the management of a French Canadian.
I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to defend the C.B.C. management; or to say that the minister is wrong, because we know nothing of the charges made by her against the C.B.C. management. On several occasions, as I said earlier, we have asked the minister to specify her accusations against the management of this crown corporation for which she is responsible to parliament.
Up to now, the minister has refused to give details; she kept the discussion very general, implying that the management was rotten in several sections of the C.B.C.
We, in the opposition, cannot of course accept such a gratuitous accusation. That is why, during the debate this afternoon, the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) asked the house to refer the bill to a committee of the house so that we might get more information on the accusations of the minister against the C.B.C. management and also study some of the provisions of the bill which, to our mind, seem rather nebulous and do not contain all the information the public-
November 6, 1967

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, the hon. member must know that in this house he is not allowed to reflect on decisions of Mr. Speaker.


Martial Asselin: The member who just interrupted me is perhaps right, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to question the ruling of the Chair; all I wanted to say is that we, of the Conservative party, wanted to know the facts in detail, and the only way to know about them would have been to refer the bill to a committee of the house where we could have studied it. I do not in the least question the decision of the Speaker, but I wanted to say only this: The Conservative party merely wanted to refer the bill to a committee of the house, not only to get acquainted with the wording, the charges of the Secretary of State, but also to bring to light certain clauses of the bill which, in our opinion, require explanations.
And we are now-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member whether he would feel restricted in the exercise of his privileges if he were to ask all his questions when the bill is studied in committee, after the principle of the bill has been agreed to on second reading.


Mr. Regimbal:: But the Liberals will not agree to refer it back.


Martial Asselin: Of course, if the Liberal party opposite co-operated fully and gave us such information, I would fully agree with the hon. member who has just interrupted me, but I am convinced that even when we study that bill in committee, we will not get all the information we need to inform the public. That is why we asked this afternoon that the bill be referred to a committee of the house so that the citizens of Canada might be informed about the scope of the important legislation now under consideration.
I return, of course, to the charges of rotten management made by the Secretary of State against the C.B.C. and I say this: For two years now, the minister has been responsible of the C.B.C. before parliament; for two years now, we have been asking her questions concerning the rotten management of the C.B.C. We have also asked questions

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting on the extension of the broadcasting system to centres which still do not have the opportunity of tuning in on the C.B.C., and during those years, the minister merely answered in the house: "I am only the messenger, the clerk of the C.B.C. I will simply transmit the message to the C.B.C. management and will give an answer to the House of Commons."
During those two years if the Secretary of State who answers for the C.B.C. knew that the corporation's management was rotten, it was her duty and her responsibility to inform the members of the house of it, because they are responsible for expenditures on behalf of either the C.B.C. or any other department of the crown.
If, during those two years, from 1965 to 1967, since she has been holding the post of Secretary of State and has been responsible to the house for the C.B.C. the minister was aware of rotten management within the C.B.C., it was her duty to so inform the House of Commons. That is why we are now astonished by that statement, which I would say is very serious, about a crown corporation that should be politically independent- it would be undesirable to have political interference within the C.B.C.-and I say that the minister has acted irresponsibly in throwing such statements, such gratuitous charges directly in the face of the C.B.C. management these last few days. As a French Canadian, I would say this is grossly unfair to another French Canadian, namely, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, who has been C.B.C. president for several years and who is near retirement, to charge him with rotten management.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: Does the C.B.C. management include only French Canadians, since he is trying to pass judgment on one man only?


Martial Asselin: I am very glad that the parliamentary secretary to the minister has asked me that question. That is precisely what we want to know and the minister has been refusing for at least one week to specify her accusations. We only want to know whether those charges relate to the C.B.C. management, to its president or to some other persons in the corporation?
The parliamentary secretary fully agrees with me. Of course, what we want to know is whether those accusations are aimed at such
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and such an individual and, if the minister has been aware of them for the past two years, why did she fail to inform the house?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am not here to bestow my blessing on the C.B.C.
I know that, at the C.B.C, there are, on some programs, much more left-wingers than middle-of-the-road men and right-wingers, that is quite clear. One just has to watch C.B.C. programs. For instance, after the separatist candidate Bourgault had run in the riding of Duplessis and had been turned down by the people of that electoral district, the C.B.C. made a film about some of his statements in the riding and Mr. Bourgault took advantage of that propaganda provided to him by the C.B.C. to try his separatist ideas on the French people served by the C.B.C. network, that is about 5 million people.
I say that is not in order. That man had been defeated; in my opinion, he was not entitled to service from the C.B.C. which showed a film such as the one we say in June, about his separatist ideas.
Another personality, another separatist, Mr. Speaker, who often appears on television, is Mr. Ren6 Levesque, a friend of our friends opposite, who has often extolled a separatist thesis: the sovereignty of Quebec within an economic alliance with the rest of Canada. Balderdash. But Mr. Rene Levesque still has a contract with the C.B.C. Since he was defeated as a minister, that is since 1966, he receives fees out of the taxpayers' money. Thanks to that contract for the program "Public Eye", Mr. Levesque can indulge in his separatist propaganda on the C.B.C. without of course, admitting it frankly. But everybody knows that actually Mr. Levesque has shown his true face.


Mr. Mackasey:: Did the hon. member ever think-


Martial Asselin: In French, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -Yes, with pleasure. Has the hon. member for Charlevoix ever heard Mr. Levesque make propaganda for the separatist movement on the program "Public Eye?"


Martial Asselin: The hon. member knows very well that Mr. Levesque had, for a long time, been an influent member of the Lesage government, and that even while he

was minister of natural resources, he advocated the separation of Quebec. I hope I am not telling him anything new when I say that nor when I state that the C.B.C. thought it advisable to give him a program and to send him to Viet Nam to interview people, information is that it cost $32,000 to the Canadian taxpayers to send Mr. Levesque and the C.B.C. team to interview people in Viet Nam.
I feel the C.B.C. is not beyond blame in that respect. That is why I say to the minister that to be fair to the management and the employees of the C.B.C. she or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), should state clearly the charges against that crown corporation.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has not answered my question. Has he ever heard Mr. Levesque indulging in propaganda for the separatist movement on television? That is the question I asked.


Martial Asselin: I answered perfectly. It is obvious that when Mr. Levesque was a minister of the crown in Quebec he could not get paid for his appearances on C.B.C. programs. The hon. member can well understand that. But the minute he lost his portfolio, the C.B.C. hired him, gave him a contract, because it was known that he could spread his doctrine of a sovereign Quebec within an economic union with the rest of Canada.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot accept that a member of this house should, for strictly electoral purposes, use the fact that the present president of the C.B.C. is a French Canadian to take offence with the stand and the statement of the Secretary of State and then enumerate to us a series of incidents against which he protests, namely Mr. Bourgault's appearance on TV and that of Mr. Rene Levesque, who advocates separatism. What does his attitude mean, except that he approves the recent statement by the hon. Secretary of State of Canada.


Martial Asselin: I cannot approve the recent statement by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, because we haven't got the necessary factors to judge. The Secretary of State would like to say to us: Here is an unfounded statement which you must accept. I say that we, the representatives of the people, cannot accept an unfounded statement by the Secretary of State. We need evidence. We need information in order to judge quite objectively; this is why
November 6, 1967

we have asked repeatedly of the Secretary of State, or of the cabinet, or even of the right hon. Prime Minister to give us information that could help us to judge whether these accusations are justified. The Liberal party, the government in office do not want to give this information. The party and the government will bear the consequences and carry the burden.
When we were in office, from 1958 to 1963, the C.B.C. employees went on strike, and I remember that we were forced to specify in this house our grievances against the management of the C.B.C. We did that and settled the strike, but it was not favourable to the government, because in 1963 all the C.B.C. information media were used to defeat the Conservative party. But, at that time, we assumed our responsibilities, and I suggest that the minister responsible for the C.B.C. should take her responsibilities before the members of parliament, before those who represent the interests of the people, in order that they can better appreciate the situation in the C.BC.
I repeat this: If the minister knew for the last two years that such a situation existed within the C.B.C., I say that she is not sincere and that she has mislead parliament in keeping these facts secret when they should have been brought to the attention of parliament, so that directives could have been given to the ministers in order to reform the management of the CB.C.
Returning to the question just asked by the hon. member, I do not object to the fact that a French Canadian has been accused. Mr. Ouimet is chairman of the C.B.C.; everyone knows that he offered to resign several months ago. The government refused the resignation but waited to introduce a new legislation in the house and accuse him of all the ills of Israel and say that if anything was wrong in the C.B.C. it was all Mr. Ouimet's fault, a French Canadian. I object to that; I object to that charge and to that gratuitous statement made by the minister.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party, anxious to make all the facts known to the public-Does the hon. member want to ask a question?


Albert Béchard: No.


Martial Asselin: That is why the
Conservative party, anxious to make all the facts known to the public is asking again that this bill be referred to a parliamentary committee, so that we may study it and call

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting as witnesses all those accused by the minister, in order to determine whether the accusations are well-founded. That is the only reason.


Mr. Duquet:: May I put a question
to the hon. member? He has read the statement of the Secretary of State, regarding the information she says is in her possession. Now, she was reported in the press as having stated that the information had been in her possession for only a couple of weeks and, a few minutes ago, the hon. member was talking about two years.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: It is very easy to reply to the question of the hon. member. If the Secretary of State has only had the information for the past two weeks, it is because she has been derelict in her duty. She is responsible for the C.B.C.; she must get information and data from all departments under her jurisdiction and she should not wait for the introduction of such an important bill as the one now before us to bring up unfounded charges against the administration of the C.B.C.


Roger E. Régimbal: That is why we want the bill to go to the committee.


Gérard Duquet: You have not replied to my question.


Martial Asselin: Yes, I have replied to your question.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows that it has been only two weeks or if he believes the minister's statement, I say that he is not in good faith when he says that the minister has had the information for two years. At least, let him stick to the facts.


Martial Asselin: I never said that I had the information for two years but I said that the minister has been Secretary of State for two years, responsible and accountable for the C.B.C. to the house and I say that if she has had the information for only two weeks, it is because she was derelict in her duties and has not fulfilled her responsibilities when she says the day before such an important bill as this is introduced, that things are not going well at the C.B.C.
If she had been a responsible minister or person, she should have inquired of a corporation under her jurisdiction to know whether things were going well or going badly.
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting And that is why, of course, we, of the Conservative party, want to have more information in order to give justice not only to C.B.C. employees but also to the minister. The minister is now in a false position and we want to settle the case. In a parliamentary committee, we could hear persons able to give explanations on the management of the C.B.C; it is as simple as that and I wonder how it happens that a certain member from Quebec objects to the Canadian people knowing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is all we want to know.
Mr. Speaker, we are studying a bill of the utmost importance. It is meant to legislate on a means of communication which belongs to all Canadians.
I do not have only blame for the minister; I have the right also to congratulate her for some provisions of the bill, and I say that, in that respect, she took into account the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts to the effect that the broadcasting system should be strictly Canadian, that it should belong to all Canadians, that it should broadcast in both French and English, and that it should also contribute to the strengthening of national unity. It should be a bilingual system. I hope that all hon. members, even those who are not of French origin, will admit that the radio and television system must belong to all Canadians and that steps must be taken so that it will work to the benefit of the two great cultural majority groups in Canada: the French Canadians and the English Canadians.
On the other hand, if there are cultural minorities of French origin in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in British Columbia and other English provinces, those minorities must be given the advantage of C.B.C. services. It is the duty of the C.B.C. to give those Frenchspeaking minorities all the means required to obtain the services of that broadcasting system. In that, I fully agree with the Secretary of State.
I also agree that the system must belong to all Canadians. I was told, upon inquiring from the C.B.C., that colour television was introduced in order to compete with certain American programs which were being picked up on Canadian soil. I say that the minister should, in agreement with the officials of the new Canadian radio commission, take all the necessary steps to ensure that the broadcasting system, which belongs to all Canadians, should be controlled by Canadians. In doing so, I think that the minister answered 
the plea of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts when she included those principles in the bill now before us.
There is also the question, Mr. Speaker, of political interference in the C.B.C. or the new committee which will be established. We have learned, and I think that it should apply to all political parties, that the committee should be free from all political interference. It does not mean that parliamentarians should not take their responsibilities when examining the C.B.C. expenditures. But I see in that bill certain provisions which would not protect that crown corporation or that radio commission from political interference.
As an example, the government itself appoints the presidents of the two big corporations. I say that those corporations are so important and exert such influence in our society, that those appointments should be made by the Canadian parliament, in the same way as the appointment of the Auditor General of Canada.
I say that the governor in council, the Prime Minister and his ministers, by reserving for themselves the right of appointing the presidents of those two corporations are placing themselves in a dangerous situation. And even if there could not be any question about it, they could always be accused of having appointed at the top of those two organizations people who could serve the government in power, whether it be Conservative, Liberal or socialist. I hope it will never be a socialist government. Conservative or Liberal, I agree. This is the reason why I say that the minister should, in my opinion, submit the appointments of both chairmen of those bodies to the approval of the House of Commons.
Another field where political interference may easily be exerted is that of appeal procedures as a result of some C.B.C. decisions which will draw the radio commission in endless political quarrels. In that field again, the minister should be extremely cautious and require the radio commission to submit those appeals to the Supreme Court, or to the Exchequer Court, order to avoid such political interference.
Mr. Speaker, when the committee of which I was fortunately a member, considered the matter of broadcasting in our country, we based ourselves on four basic principles, which are found in the Fowler report of 1965 on broadcasting.
For the information of people who have not read that report, here are the four basic principles which the committee as well as the
November 6, 1967

cabinet and the minister had to use as a basis to alter the structures of the C.B.C. and set up those of the commission created by this bUl:
1.	The public should be offered a wide and varied choice of programs.
2.	All programming should be of high quality.
Here, as a digression, I ask the C.B.C. officials to keep an eye on their programs, particularly on those directed to the young. Most of them have children and know that until eight o'clock at night children watch television. Therefore why show before eight o'clock at night films which aim only at warping the conscience and the morals of our young people?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
And as the head of a family, I must object to certain programs broadcast by the C.B.C. between six and eight o'clock at a time when children watch the C.B.C. programs before going to bed. In several cases, I say that the C.B.C. has presented programs whose purpose is to pervert the conscience and the morals of the listeners whereas the C.B.C. should be an instrument of culture, information, an instrument which would raise the morals of our youth. That is why I claim that as far as programming is concerned, the C.B.C. should be more careful in showing films between six o'clock-


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: If Duplessis was here-


Martial Asselin: Does the minister wish to put a question?


Desmond Morton Code: If Duplessis was still alive he would talk of the poets.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, if it is desired to go into this area I am quite ready to discuss it. Ten years, I think, have gone by since Hon. Mr. Duplessis passed on and he still haunts the conscience of our friends opposite. It shows that he was a strong man in Quebec.
Thirdly, the third basic principle is the following:
Broadcasting has national responsibilities and must awaken Canadians to Canadian realities.
Here evidently, I think that it deals with what I said earlier. I think that the C.B.C. programming must in the first place take into account the ideology, the philosophy of the community to be served as a whole. I do not wish to mean by that-


Gérard Duquet: Would the hon. member- 27053-250
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Martial Asselin: Let me finish, you may ask your question later, because the time allowed to me is drawing to a close. I do not mean by that we should kick out the people who do not think as the majority of the people served, but an opportunity should at least be given to those who share the ideas of the majority to use the facilities of the C.B.C. to state their opinions and their views. I think that certain equalities must be maintained in the programming field, especially as far as information programs are concerned.
I would not want only separatist people within C.B.C., and if there are people who hold different views, they should have an equal opportunity to be heard on C.B.C. I think this is a question of fairness that the C.B.C. management should consider when preparing public affairs programs on political, sociological or economic issues. An effort at balance should be made, and panel guests should be not only representatives of minority opinion within our society, but also people who speak for the majority of us.
That is what I would expect from the C.B.C. management.
Now, in respect to the fourth basic principle-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time as expired.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, having reviewed some of the comments hon. members opposite have made over the last period of years about the C.B.C., I find it difficult to believe that all of a sudden they have become great champions of the C.B.C. and its programming. I suspect somehow that it is not that they disagree with what the minister has said, but rather the way in which she has said it. I find it very difficult to comprehend how all this criticism could be valid when the minister is not responsible for the C.B.C. In the case of either the Department of Public Works or the Department of National Defence, for instance, I can understand that if the minister of either of these departments, made some critical remarks about his department we would consider such remarks to be uncalled for because that department would be under his control. That is, we would take the position that a minister should not criticize his or her department if that minister is in a position to fire the deputies or senior civil servants. In this case, however, I wonder what hon. members
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting opposite would say ii the minister attempted to interfere with the C.B.C.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are saying that the minister should not have made the remarks she did, but they do not explain in what other manner she might have criticized the C.B.C., for cause. In other words, hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be saying that she must at all times accept without question the direction, the programming and the administration of the C.B.C. If she did that, they would be the first to criticize her again. The minister answers to the house for the C.B.C., but she cannot interfere.


An hon. Member:: Can she not make a decision?


Steven Otto: The hon. gentleman has asked why she does not make a decision. What decision is there to be taken which you would accept, and not immediately say is interference? As I say, although the minister might have made her criticism in a way which is objectionable to some hon. members opposite, the substance of the criticism is warranted. In fact, of all the departments, the C.B.C. is probably the only quasi governmental or quasi administrative department. This is the only department which is responsible to no one. I wonder whether this fact is known to a great number of members: The C.B.C. is responsible to absolutely no one.
The C.B.C. does not need to worry about money, because the estimates come down every year and no one dare question those estimates. The minister tables the estimates and sometimes, but very rarely, there is a vote. There is no restriction in respect of the financial requirements. I am still waiting to hear someone explain how we could introduce some measure of responsibility to the C.B.C. without being accused of political interference. I do not know whether this bill provides the answer to the question. However I will endeavour to review it later.
The C.B.C. of course has been worthy of praise in respect of the quality of the programming. On the other hand, however, because of this lack of responsiblility the Canadian citizens who are the shareholders of the C.B.C. and also the viewers, do not have any communication whatsoever with the directors of the corporation. No one can dictate or even make a suggestion to the C.B.C. What can anyone do? One could write to the C.B.C. and say that he does not like the programming policy or the administration, but that is as far as it would go.

We do not dare criticize the C.B.C. Members opposite have just proven that the minister dare not criticize or in any way suggest the C.B.C. might be improperly carrying out its administrative function. I am not sure whether or not this bill covers the point. I believe we will still be left with the important question of how we can introduce responsibility. In the field of private broadcasting the problem is not serious. To every action there is a reaction, because private broadcasters must obtain their financial support from industry and commerce. At all times any irresponsibility certainly would be questioned and might affect their ability to carry on. The C.B.C., however, is not worried about this.
Perhaps I might give an example. At the moment the C.B.C. has gone off on a great tangent in respect of pollution. Some programming people and writers are greatly concerned about water and air pollution. We all know there is a problem in this regard. First they show all these pictures of little children's lungs exploding because of the filthy air, and so on. They cover every conceivable angle. I suppose if we went back far enough we could even get the same type of pictures in the Garden of Eden.
I am not suggesting that it is not time some action should be taken in the problem of pollution, but I do suggest that I have not yet seen a C.B.C. program which shows the other side of the coin; in other words, what we should do about it. Finally they suggest that the viewers should write to their member asking that the pollution be cleaned up. However, we do have a border, and industry can move across the border and thereby save a great deal of money if the cost of pollution control should prove to be prohibitive. Then who will answer for the unemployment situation which will arise? Not the C.B.C. It is all very well for someone to bring up a great challenge and a great ideal, but there must be some responsibility behind it.
The C.B.C. does not have any responsibility behind its thinking, whether it is the Truscott case, the Viet Nam situation or pollution which is involved. All these are tangents which possibly have a worth-while basis, but in respect of which we never hear the other side of the problem. I hope this bill will help bring about a new sense of responsibility to the C.B.C. and a regard for the views of its shareholders.
November 6, 19G7

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let me now refer to the subject matter of this bill with which I am concerned, and that is C.A.T.V. or community antenna television. The minister has said that this will fall within the jurisdiction of the board. Having read the definitions I have the feeling the whole question will become an issue at some future time. Let me bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of hon. members, the possible effect of C.A.T.V. on broadcasting. This could be a matter of great importance in a short while. C.A.T.V. is at the present time owned by several independent companies. It is being acquired by two or three large corporations, one of which is the Famous Players group. This group is very interested in C.A.T.V. franchises in large cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. I believe the Maclean-Hunter group is getting into other areas, but I am more interested in Famous Players because, as they acquire more and more franchises, we might experience a repetition of history in that a monopoly will be created which has not proven too satisfactory in the past so far as films are concerned.
Hon. members I am sure will be surprised to realize that the easement for cables to dwellings is owned by the franchised company. Hon. members will be even more surprised to learn that around the perimeter of metropolitan Toronto in a number of subdivisions restrictions are placed on titles by C.A.T.V. or Famous Players to the effect that purchasers or owners of homes may not put up outdoor antennae and must subscribe to C.A.T.V. at the rate of $25 per year. This restriction is maintained in the registered title. I have an offer to purchase in my hand which contains the exact wording. It states that the purchaser agrees to accept the property subject to any agreement between the development company and Metropolitan Cablevision Limited for the installation of underground TV cable at a yearly rental to the purchaser of $25 per annum per lot, such rental to commence three years after the occupancy of the home or homes so erected. It also states that the deed will contain substantially the same restriction, namely the purchaser agrees not to erect an outdoor television antenna on his home or on his lands, the restriction to run with the land.
We find a great number of homes tied up by C.A.T.V. by this restriction on the title. Had someone been successful in moving channel 3 into the metropolitan Toronto area 27053-2501
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the whole of the city of Toronto would have been an easy target for Famous Players, and C.A.T.V. franchises would have provided control over that whole area. It is well known that cable television can accommodate only so many channels, and if a specific television station is not included it would be out of business. The only reception available would be through cable and the company could choose whichever station it wanted. In this particular case the company chose channel 13 and left out channel 3 at Barrie. The company could choose a station from California or Vancouver and leave out the Toronto station if that station proved to be unco-operative.
Let me now refer to the past 30 year record of the Famous Players group, the primary owner of all of these C.A.T.V. outlets. Famous Players is owned by Paramount Pictures Corporation, which is run by Barney Balaban of New York. It has the exclusive distribution rights of all films made by the seven large producers. Some 30 or 40 years ago many of our downtown theatres found they could obtain only third run movies. They were given to understand that if they sold 51 per cent to Famous Players for $1 they would have access to first run pictures. About 1,300 theatres throughout Canada sold 51 per cent to Famous Players for $1 and were then in business. Many of these people are still alive and I have a file of affidavits which indicate they were intimidated into selling or giving away more than half of their theatres to Famous Players in order to obtain first run pictures. That is the history.
There was a prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act, but the government was unsuccessful because the prosecution should have been entered as one for intimidation under the Criminal Code. Famous Players is now acquiring these cable television franchises, and I am afraid history will repeat itself. This group will have the entire metropolitan Toronto area tied up. It might then say to channel 9 or one of the other television stations that it does not like its programming. It might threaten to use channel 19, 21 or some other station and prevent that station from being on cable. The group might then offer to cover them by cable, provided they give over 51 per cent of their station to the group, in order that it may be run properly.
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Hon. members may wonder why Famous Players is so anxious to obtain these franchises, because cablevision is not that profitable an operation. One must remember the great intimidation that may exist. Not only should this system be under the jurisdiction of the board, but the act should be amended to provide that whenever a licence is granted the cable company must make an assignment of all its rights, title and interest, as well as easements for distributing programs, to become the property of the board in the event of default of the terms of the licence.
This may sound very drastic, but one must remember that these cable companies own the easement and have placed restrictions on titles. They now have tremendous power and they must come under the control of a government agency. They must not be allowed effectively to create a monopoly as they did 35 years ago ruthlessly and in a manner which would not be tolerated today.
It is not my intention to deal further with other arguments which I believe have little or nothing to do with this bill. I do urge the minister, however, to review this whole situation in relation to C.A.T.Y. and to define very clearly so there will be no doubt that C.A.T.V. falls within the jurisdiction and control of this board.
o (9:00 p.m.)


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard a very interesting discourse by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in connection with the evolution of the parliamentary system in Canada over the past 100 years. I think there is a corollary or a similarity between the evolution of government in this country and the evolution of broadcasting. I might remind hon. members that this afternoon the Prime Minister gave some excerpts, some thoughts, some news reports of the situation as it obtained in 1867. He indicated that the object of the government of that day was peace, order and good government; meaning of course that as little government as possible should be administered in order to protect the people's peace and liberty.
We find that government in Canada today has grown to such an extent that it is the constant companion of every individual in this country. In this country today we find that government interference in a person's private life is proceeding at a faster rate than even George Orwell anticipated when he wrote the book "1984." I would refresh the memory of hon. members by indicating

that in 1867 the budget of Canada was $20 million. This year it is $lli billion. In other words, to make this more understandable, when our country was founded the expenditures of the government amounted to $5 per head. In 1967 the expenditures of the government amount to $575 per head. That is quite a change in 100 years.
We cannot go back 100 years in so far as broadcasting is concerned, but we can go back to the incorporation of the C.B.C. in 1932 and compare the thoughts expressed in the House of Commons by the politicians of the day in regard to their expectations for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We can compare the aims and objects of that time with those of the bill before us today.
As a matter of interest I would point out to the house that in 1932 the whole of the debate with respect to the incorporation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the clause by clause study of the bill took up ten pages of Hansard. The introduction of this bill by the minister exceeded ten pages of Hansard, and I daresay that by the time we have completed our discussion on second reading and the clause by clause study of the bill we will have covered 200 pages of Hansard.
The thoughts of the politicans in 1932 were quite straightforward. They were simply put. It seems to me that the three principles the politicians of the day were trying to incorporate in the C.B.C. were those to which I shall now refer-and these principles can be seen from reading Hansard of the day. The first principle was that this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources free from foreign interference or influence. The politicians of that day had in mind items of national concern, national thought and ideals, and national unity. The second principle was that service should be provided to all communities regardless of size and location. The third principle was that the airways are owned by the people of Canada and are a natural resource. Those were the objectives in 1932.
We find in 1967 that we have gone a long way along the road toward state control and ultimate thought control. The objects of Bill C-163 are many in number but I will read just one. I refer to clause 2 (g) which reads as follows:
-the national broadcasting service should
(i) be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion,
November 6, 1967	COMMONS
(i)) be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available,
(iii)	be in English and French, serving the special needs of geographic regions, and actively contributing to the flow and exchange of cultural and regional information and entertainment, and
(iv)	contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
I contend that these aims are a far cry from the original thoughts expressed in 1932. In other words, like the expansion of the national budget, our efforts to control the thinking of the Canadian people, to isolate the Canadian people from the world, have grown in similar proportion. In 1932 the then prime minister, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett said-and incidentally, he introduced this bill in the House of Commons-as reported at page 3035 of volume 3 of Hansard for 1932:
-it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need.
I have underlined in my notes the words "popular will." In other words, the government of the day thought that the object of the C.B.C. should be to provide programming that would meet the popular will of the Canadian people.
I contend that this bill does not take that principle into consideration. This bill sets down parameters of broadcasting that will allow the government to control the thoughts and ideas that are put forward to the people of this country. I think this is just one more stage in the development of the process that is now in progress, namely that of the government controlling all our thoughts in the very near future.
To think in that vein may seem a little old fashioned to some people in this chamber, but I agree with one of the senior statesmen of this country, the recently retired Senator T. A. Crerar, who said in an article written in "Canada Month" of August, 1967:
-the most basic instinct in the human animal- and it is true in all animal life-is freedom. Freedom from being controlled directly-
This is instinctive somehow in all creatures. The whole evolution of society-any study of it- indicates that people are always reaching our for more freedom. Freedom from feudal lords, for instance: freedom from dictatorial kings. And they felt they'd reached it when they got the democratic process, where people were governed with the consent of the governed.
Our democratic process has not brought us the freedom we anticipated. In fact, through the democratic process I fear we are rapidly losing what little freedom we have. I have no
DEBATES	3951
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting doubt that this bill will go through because it is the experience of parliamentarians in this house that, when a government bill is introduced, while we may change one little item here or there, in the main the bill goes through. So we are limited on this side of the house in making suggestions as to how best to improve the particular piece of legislation that is before us. Many speeches have been made, and I do not want to go over the same points that have been made by several hon. members. I should like to confine myself to one or two points. The last speaker, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), made reference to the problem of community antenna television. This aspect of broadcasting in Canada received only cursory treatment in the government white paper on broadcasting. As a matter of fact the phase of community antenna television in which I am most interested is the one which employs a coaxial cable or a microwave system. I say that this part interests me the most because I come from a part of the country where a large segment of the population consider themselves second class citizens, owing to the fact that they are denied the right to avail themselves of community antenna television programming which is already enjoyed by the people in central and eastern Canada, e (9:10 p.m.)
It may be of interest to hon. members to learn that 54 per cent of the population of Canada can take advantage of community antenna television which brings in programs from United States stations located close to the border. In the prairie provinces the situation is slightly different. The centres of population in the United States are a fair distance south of the border, while the population centres in Canada are a fair distance north of the border, and it is not possible to bring in a signal directly from a United States to a Canadian station without using either a coaxial cable or microwave transmission. So the people of Calgary, a city of 370,000, the city of Edmonton with a population of over 400,000, the city of Saskatoon, the city of Regina and all the smaller cities in the prairies, are denied programming such as other parts of Canada enjoy.
We are not asking the government to build stations for us. There are many people in western Canada who are prepared to build, finance and run community antenna television systems employing coaxial and microwave systems. The government is denying them the right to build these systems, and yet in the white paper on broadcasting
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this particular phase of broadcasting is cavalierly dismissed in the following statement: Study is being given to special problems of jurisdiction involved in the regulation of closed-circuit television operations and the reception of transmissions from antennae in the United States fed through a coaxial cable or microwave system to Canadian communities for local distribution over cable networks.
There is no problem in eastern Canada and there is no problem in Ontario, Quebec and parts of the maritimes because these people are close enough to the border to bring the signal into their particular locality without making application to the government for the use of a coaxial cable. The only place where this problem exists is in western Canada. So the people of western Canada feel that the government treats them very unfairly. It makes them feel that they are second class citizens. The government has not thought fit to deny such a licence to other parts of Canada. I do not recall the exact number of licences that have already been issued but I think there are about 17 or 19 licences for community antenna television now in existence.
The Fowler royal commission report on broadcasting indicates that the federal government does not restrict the entry of United States publications or radio broadcasts into Canada, nor does it restrict the reception of United States television broadcasts by 54 per cent of all Canadians who are close enough to the border to receive them either direct or through cable television systems now in operation, If Canadians in border areas and those within reach of existing cable systems are allowed to receive United States broadcasts, then the right of Canadians in areas more distant from the border cannot be any less.
The Calgary Herald has a television column written by Bob Shiels. I do not know the date of this issue, but it had the following to say in connection with the installation of cable television:
Taking a more the merrier attitude, I'll say that United States programming should be admitted to Calgary (like Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal) on an unlimited basis.
What you wind up with is a freedom of choice.
I certainly won't endorse the bulk of the American programming but I'll defend to the death the viewer's right to watch it.
This is what we want. We want the right to watch and the right to make a choice. We want to choose the type of program that we watch and, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said in his speech the other day, if we produce good programs, IMr. Ballard.]
Canadians will not want to watch the programs from the United States. The opposite view is that if we produce poor programs, people will turn off their sets rather than watch them. I think it is time we opened the windows in broadcasting in this country and let in some fresh air.
Our Canadian artists, producers and technicians are capable of competing with the best in the world, and no amount of legislative protection will change that situation. Actors are actors because they so choose. The fact that you will inhibit competition with them can do nothing but lessen their ability to act. I might say that we have some support for the argument that I am putting forward from a source close at hand, namely the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) in his book "The Troubled Air", the third chapter of which begins as follows:
Remarkable new developments in communications defy all attempts at regulation and raise new doubts concerning both the wisdom and effectiveness of state control.
He deals at length with the inconsistencies of attempting to control this fast changing medium, and concludes in the following words:
On the basis of the scanty research that is available, there is reason to believe that the real nature of today's broadcasting, with the complexities introduced by new means of transmission, new inventions and techniques, is vastly different from the concept on which the law is based.
There is also reason to think that the same law may well be inhibiting the ability of the media to provide services which they are capable of performing extremely well. Only if this possibility is accepted, and a great many well-entrenched theories and prejudices set aside, can there be any significant progress in the search for broadcasting's real and perhaps still undiscovered potential.
I am making a plea to the minister in the hope that the problems in western Canada, such as the inability of people in that area to receive a multiplicity of channels, and the government's attitude in trying to shield the people of western Canada from the influence of United States television stations will receive close attention from her.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been assured by the minister that television and radio stations will be given a free hand in their programming. I do not want to say too much about this. When the Canadian Association of Broadcasters presented a brief or commentary on the white paper to the standing committee they were very quite reluctant to have
November 6, 1967	COMMONS
too strenuous government control of programming. In their brief they pointed out the following:
Parliament may want certain things from programming, or the broadcasters may, or any other group, but those things will not follow unless the programming attracts audience.
This is why any policies relative to the programming field should, in the light of our experience, be extremely flexible and very broad and general.
One of the problems we have met in the past, Mr. Speaker-and I think this thought is also shared by the minister-is that the management of the C.B.C. think that everyone should listen to a program that is educational, something that is of a very high artistic standard. However, they always program the type of art that those particular people in management believe to be art. I know from my own experience that certain types of art that have been praised by the experts to me do not represent art at all.
The minister says that she is going to put certain restrictions on programming. After detailing a few incidental controls that the B.B.G. or Canadian radio commission will have on radio programming, as reported at page 3747 of Hansard for November 1, the minister said:
Beyond these reasonable limitations, broadcasters must be allowed the right to freedom of expression; that is to say, censorship and pre-editing of programs are not only undesirable but impractical.
Then as reported at the top of the next page the minister goes on:
None the less this privilege of free speech carries with it a heavy responsibility and must be exercised with due regard to the public interest. It will therefore be a function of the commission to observe and assess the degree of responsibility shown by each broadcaster in exercising his privilege of free expression and to take this factor into account-
That is, the commission will take this factor into account.
-when the renewal of his licence is under review.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue the present situation, which means there is no clear definition of the range and type of programming that can be produced and broadcast by a television station. It is not until after the fact that the commission decides whether or not a certain type of program is acceptable.
There have been cases when a station was closed down and its licence taken away because a member of the governing body decided that a certain program was not a
DEBATES	3953
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting proper program to be transmitted. The complaint has been that there were no guide lines laid down governing the type of program that was required. Therefore I hope the minister will give to the broadcasters of this country some very clear indication in this respect, some guide lines along which they can work without fear of attracting the wrath of the C.R.C.
In an editorial in the Tillsonburg News- and again I am afraid I do not have the date-the situation of programming was summed up in this way:
We think most people buy a radio or television set for the entertainment they expect it will provide. We doubt many buy with the thought of being educated or "getting culture." What's wrong with being entertained?
There are too many vague generalizations by the committee. It sounds like they think everything the private stations do is lousy. This is nonsense. Many of the private stations do an excellent job. The committee says: "The private stations have responsibilities as holders of valuable rights from the state. They cannot merely go on providing a useful service to their local communities and letting the cash registers tick on."
According to this editorial, the committee has found it disgraceful that a broadcaster should let the cash registers tick on, that it is a sin for Canadian broadcasters to make a profit. This editorial continues:
Pray, what is the matter with providing a valuable service to the local community? Are we only to hear and do what the "state" feels we should hear and do?
The editorial ends with this sentence:
In fact it makes us dam mad that what some people think what is good for Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto is good for the whole country.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we will find it impossible to defeat this bill, but while we are considering it in committee surely to goodness we should be able to brighten up Canadian broadcasting to the point where it is acceptable to the people of Canada. We should not restrict the importation of foreign material. Our object should be to improve the calibre of Canadian broadcasting to the point where the Canadian people would be proud to listen to it and watch it. They should be proud of Canadian productions. If we do this, Mr. Speaker, and if this is the end for which we strive, then we will not have to worry about programs that are imported from other countries.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, one of the first phrases used in
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Bill No. C-163 in the policy section of the bill is as follows:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to preserve and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;-
It is with that subject, and particularly with the relationship to that subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that I want to deal.
While I am ready to vote for this bill -because almost any rearrangement of the C.B.C.'s affairs would be good for it and the nation-I think we should look very seriously beyond the present bill to the much larger question: Do we really need the C.B.C. any more? No one should be shocked by such a suggestion. We set up this institution when times were different, when times were not the same as they are today.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What do you mean by "we"?


Grant Deachman: If it has outlived the purpose for which it was established we should be prepared to change its function radically, or to pack it up. There would be no shame in that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: That is the subject I wish to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, for the next several minutes. Do not adjust your set.
We do not need the C.B.C. to provide us with returns of old movies. Commercial television is quite capable of handling this function and they do it very well. We do not need the C.B.C. to bring United States live shows, sports, news and commentary; our own commercial network and cable television are able to bring those to us meanwhile reaping a profit from the advertising and leaving us in the position to tax that profit. We do not need the C.B.C. to bring us major Canadian sports event because commercial television is more than willing to carry commercial television sports programs and to make money doing so thus leaving us in the position to tax the profits they make.
When one compares the C.T.V. coverage of the recent Tory convention with the C.B.C. coverage of that event, and the cost of providing that C.T.V. coverage with what it cost to provide C.B.C. coverage, it ought to be quite evident to all of us that the day has arrived when the commercial networks can provide coverage of news and major Canadi-
an events that is as good as that provided by the national network, at a good deal less cost.


An hon. Member:: Same cost.


Grant Deachman: We need Canadian documentary films and feature films in this country, but we have a National Film Board and we have many good, commercial film companies in this country which are able to produce documentary and feature films. Also we have a commercial television network that is willing to broadcast such films for fees that amount to a fraction of the cost of maintaining the C.B.C.
If originally we established the C.B.C. to disseminate Canadian culture throughout Canada, the corporation has for a long time failed to fulfil that function in a way that warrants the enormous sums spent on it. The C.B.C. stands at the end of the cornucopia, gorging itself with public dollars at a rate unequalled by any crown corporation in Canada's 100 years of history.
The C.B.C. is no longer Canadian-if it ever was Canadian.


An hon. Member:: It was not.


Grant Deachman: It is highly concentrated in Toronto, and that is the most parochial town in Canada. As proof of what I say, consider the public affairs programs on which all those tired Torontonians like Gordon Sinclair, Pierre Berton, Mavor Moore, Nathan Cohen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: -Patrick Watson, Douglas Leiterman, Ross MacLean, and a dozen others I might mention, appear. They ask each other the same old questions week after week and give each other the same old answers. Don't you wish you could pack up the C.B.C., Mr. Speaker, if only to show that there are other people in other cities of Canada with fresher ideas about public affairs? Consider the morbid preoccupation of the C.B.C. with the dregs of society, the pornographers they bring from across the line, the nazis, racists, prostitutes, addicts and characters of doubtful sex. I ask, are we really putting our tax dollars to the best use when we pay enormous sums to the C.B.C., for it to sift these dregs for us week after week after week?
We might consider this, for example: In another area of C.B.C. activity, its great seal hunting campaign, the C.B.C. took up the cause and waged it so effectively that they
November 6, 1967

have destroyed the livelihood of many Eskimos and lowered the already meagre standard of living of many gulf fishermen. What a campaign that was; and they come to us asking us to support them from the tax rolls. Does anyone in this house not feel that it is in the national interest to curb such an irresponsible and uncontrollable engine of destruction?
Consider the revenues of the C.B.C.: To derive any revenue at all it must give over its prime time to national advertisers and United States programs. What value is there in retaining government ownership of a television network that must give all its best hours to the programs of another nation? Consider any of these questions, and what is there about C.B.C. that makes it worthy of federal support in its present form?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Grant Deachman: That is why I think the time has come for us to think about packing up the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Carling Red Cap and all that.


Grant Deachman: I do not suggest that the C.B.C. should be cut up with blow torches and its people dismissed, the way the Tories dealt with the Avro Arrow. I think there is a vast new field for C.B.C. equipment and many of its technical personnel in the field of educational television, which has been mentioned a number of times during this debate.
I believe that the C.B.C., as we know it, should be packed up and that we should establish a new Canadian educational television corporation in its place. We should establish two Canadian E.T.V. networks from coast to coast, one English and one French. We should leave commercial programs to commercial television and we should make it a condition of every television licence that is granted that the station holding it shall reserve certain times for Canadian documentary and feature films. We should continue to produce documentaries through the National Film Board. Commercial film and television companies also should engage in that activity. The French network thus would come not only to fulfil a national role in E.T.V. but would continue to supply French programs. It must do that in the context of the French language.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Let me enlarge a little on this new picture. We face problems of national unity, bicultur-alism and bilingualism that will remain with us for a long time. With the help of the provinces, the universities and schools I hope that this country will lead the world in developing E.T.V. as an instrument of education and culture. It will bring about national unity and will assist us in the solution of our problems.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I would hope that these two E.T.V. networks, French and English from coast to coast, reaching into our universities, our schools and our homes, would help weld us together in national pride and unity. I would hope to see a new understanding of our country and of the nature of our dual culture flow from this new instrument. By getting the C.B.C. out of commercial television I believe the commercial networks would be strengthened in a way which would lead to higher levels of live programming and better news coverage, and that this could be done at a profit which would allow taxes to be returned to the national treasury. By shifting the production of documentary films and features to the National Film Board and commercial producers we could I believe reverse the undesirable trend toward the centralization of television in Toronto, which certainly has done television no good whatever. At the same time I believe it would lead to a reduction in costs and would encourage the development of the film and television industry in many communities in Canada instead of leaving it centralized beneath the shadow of Yorkville.
I believe, as everyone in this chamber believes, that television is too important a medium to be left entirely to commercial enterprise. There must be a place for Canada on any international network and this is why it should be a condition of every television licence that a certain amount of time be allocated for national use, perhaps in the form of documentary or cultural programs.
We may within a few years be launching a satellite to carry T.V. and telecommunications signals everywhere across Canada. When we do, the whole nature of television will be changed; we shall be able to relay television into almost every settlement in Canada no matter where it is situated-behind mountains or in remote regions of the north. The educative power of such transmissions in small communities will be immense. We shall be able to bring world television news live, as it happens.
November 6. 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I urge the government to pack up the C.B.C. and prepare for a new era of usefulness for television in Canada, in fact, for an era of leadership in this new realm of education. We should be world pioneers and world leaders in this field if only because of the very nature of our country and of our culture. I urge the government to give the commercial networks a better opportunity to develop live Canadian programs and to consider folding up the operations of one of the most costly ventures in our history, and divert those funds to the new fields I have mentioned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the suggestions he has thrown out, all of which deserve consideration, would he now ask the government to withdraw the bill so that it might be redrawn to fit in with his ideas?


Grant Deachman: Oh, the bill makes some advances and I would hope that upon the basis of the suggestions I have made many more advances will rapidly be made. We shall have to deal with E.T.V. soon, as well as other matters having an impact on national broadcasting, and I am sure these things will come about. I ask the hon. gentleman for his support.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are leaving things as they are.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Despite what I take to be a gallant effort on the part of the previous speaker to draw the attention of the house away from the hassle the government has got into involving the minister and the management of the C.B.C. I shall be extemely brief and confine my remarks to one or two non-controversial points.
I rise to say that in my opinion the best thing we can do with regard to the legislation now before us, embodying a new broadcasting policy for Canada, is to get it to the standing committee on broadcasting immediately.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hear, hear.


Barry Mather: In all fairness, it should be said that this legislation is not the product of any one group in this house. I am a member of the standing committee on broadcasting and I believe other members of that committee will agree with me when I say that many of the basic principles contained in this legislation reflect the thinking of at least the
[Mr. Deachman.)
three major political parties in the house. Several of the recommendations follow very closely the recommendations of the committee on which we were all represented.
For example, the bill acknowledges the truth of the fact that all broadcasting is of public concern, and that the public either hears or watches the broadcasts, and pays for them through grants to the public enterprise, or through that part of money used for the purchase of consumer goods which pays for the advertising essential to the running of the private stations. Then there are recommendations in the bill calling for the stricter regulation of broadcasting, both public and private, and there are provisions which would, in my opinion at least, change and improve the situation with regard to C.B.C. management. For all these reasons I say again that the most sensible thing we could do at this time, having had a good discussion of generalities, would be to send the bill at once to the committee on broadcasting, on which we are all represented, and get down to the real business at hand.
Some of us may be tempted to continue the embarrassment of the government at this time in connection with the unfortunate situation in which it now finds itself as a result of the exchanges between the minister and the C.B.C. However, I am sure it would be more logical to deal with the actual legislation before us, and this we can do in detail only at committee level. In this way some good can be done. As we are proceeding now, we shall not do very much good; we are carrying on a sort of Punch and Judy show and I believe we could employ our time very much better if we passed the legislation at this stage and got the bill into committee.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is not my intention to prolong this debate and I
respect the words of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. However, I do think that at this stage it is our responsibility to express our thoughts on the basic principles which underlie the legislation. It is therefore my intention to speak briefly from the point of view of a parent about this broadcasting legislation and the responsibility we all carry, and will carry for a number of years.
During the last three or four years I have received an increasing number of protests from parents in Canada on the subject of broadcasting, particularly television. I am convinced that the basic unity of Canadian life and of the Canadian way of living rests with the Canadian home. It is an old adage
November 6, 1967

that Canadian families have the same right to expect wholesome and pure types of program from the public broadcasting corporation as they have to expect pure water from their taps. While this concept may be considered old fashioned, it is a truism that some means must be devised whereby the taxpayer must have some say in how his tax dollar is to be spent, and no taxpayer is more important than those who are heads of Canadian homes.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have a new broadcasting bill before us. It is intended to improve the entire area of broadcasting in Canada, private and public. This is the responsibility of parliament. If we really believe in democracy, then it is our responsibility to bring our publicly owned broadcasting corporation under more effective public control, and provide the regulations which will likewise strengthen and guide private broadcasting. It is all right to protect the C.B.C. from political influence, but the citizens of Canada have been hoodwinked into believing that it must also be protected from public control. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian people are paying for the multimillion dollar operation of a broadcasting network, and it is a denial of the fundamental principles of democracy to refuse them a voice in its affairs. This therefore presents us with one of our most important responsibilities this session, as we deal with this legislation.
Philip Dean in La Presse last year made a very significant statement, a very brief portion of which I would like to repeat here as it relates to the control of the C.B.C. He said-
-that C.B.C. producers must be convinced by management that they-the producers-do not have the right to wield power over shows. C.B.C. producers actually say this should be so. The ultimate power which dictates the shape of the show is content-the facts, the issues-not would-be Fellinis who believe the country owes them large budgets for self-expression.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we view this legislation and study it very carefully from the aspect of the responsibility we have in this regard.
It is my intention to raise the important problem of family life in relation to this broadcasting bill. This is a growing problem, clearly pointed out in the need which the late Governor General Vanier felt to establish the Vanier Institute of the Family, for the purpose of trying to bring the best wisdom to bear on the question of how we can aid and
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting improve family life in this country, not how we can destroy or weaken it.
Tragically the C.B.C. has evidenced a strong tendency on many programs to produce plays, interviews, and in-depth stories which can only be interpreted as undermining family life. Our responsibility in this bill is to make certain that the new heads of the C.B.C. have a clear mandate to keep our national broadcasting system one which supports this fundamental framework of national existence, not one which undercuts it and the essential work of organizations such as the Vanier Institute, the church, family guidance counsellors and the millions of mothers and fathers who bear the responsiblity of raising healthy and happy children equipped to face life with enduring values, with concern for their fellowmen and their country, and whose religious faith is not always under attack by the broadcasting medium which is supported by their own tax dollars.
It is not necessary to bring before this house the details of C.B.C. programming which I believe have transgressed the very framework of sound family life. Two years ago 80,000 Canadian women, most of them mothers, petitioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and parliament to clean up the C.B.C. Signatures were drawn from every province of Canada, and these were just a sample of the grave concern felt by many Canadian parents. May I just quote briefly from that petition:
The future of our country depends on the strength of its homes and the character of the men and women those homes produce. Television and radio have unparalleled power to inspire a nation to build a clean, strong and free society. Instead these media are being exploited to maintain a constant assault on character, to undermine faith in God and respect for law and authority, to destroy sound home life and the knowledge of right and wrong... We ask you to end the domination of a minority who misuse the C.B.C. to spread propaganda or perversion, pornography, free love blasphemy, dope, violence and crime. More and more of our tax money has to be diverted to deal with the increasing social wreckage-
We believe the true function of the C.B.C. is to help us raise a generation with the strength and character and courageous leadership that the opportunities of this age demand.
Mr. Speaker, many thousands of Canadian mothers handed us this challenge. What are we going to do about it? We have enjoyed the tremendous challenge of a confederation year, the amazing inspiration of Expo, which confounded all the cynics and called on man to rise to the highest challenges of God's universe, not to be mired in the cynical, depreciating, mud strewn views of so many
November 6, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of the C.B.C. producers and exponents of weird ideas.
In spite of this group I must say that the broadcasting corporation has done a fine job for Canada in portraying the best of our centennial celebrations. I understand that this happened due to a highly effective C.B.C. headquarters committee which had its way in centennial programming. Such positive programs and positive attitudes must be retained. What I am concerned about is the small, mischievous or misguided minority who all too often gain control of prime broadcasting hours in order to air controversial and degrading programs which can only be interpreted and understood by viewers as a challenge to the very family and moral fibres which in the past have made this nation of ours great. No better example of that can be found than the plays all too often produced by the C.B.C. In the theatre they are known as the kitchen sink variety. What is their message except the degradation of human character, the break-up of or contempt for family life, and the loss of moral values?
What do most Canadians want in the way of plays? Look at the amazing success of the wonderful family play "Anne of Green Gables." It has been sold out at every performance right across Canada, loved by young and old alike. It is human, family oriented, and gay. It has something of faith, and above all is not degrading to human personality. Canadians want to see more like it regularly on their government sponsored networks. Surely scores of Canadian writers produce positive plays about life, and many more would so if they knew the C.B.C. was in the market, encouraging a new and positive kind of drama in this country.
In case there are some who may think that such thinking is old fashioned, or who give the impression that what the majority of Canadians want on C.B.C. is something else, I would like to refer the house at this time to a number of newspaper editorials that deal with this very serious problem. The first quotations deal with the period three years ago, during the initial uproar over the C.B.C. and some of its rotten programming. Perhaps this was the reason for the minister's use of the term rotten, which was justified in many ways.
At that time the press of the nation was calling on the government to act on its responsibilities toward the C.B.C. Since that time we have moved through royal commissions, special committees, almost endless

debates, assertions and questions in parliament, to the point where we must now take effective action in legislation. The demands of Canadian parents and of the general public have culminated in today's debate.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what is going to be the business for tomorrow, and if possible could he also outline what he intends to take for the rest of the week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the second reading of the broadcasting bill, and when we finish that tomorrow we will deal with the capital punishment measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the speech from the throne.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, several days ago, on the orders of the day, I raised a question with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) concerning whether he would consider promoting legislation to regulate cigarette advertising in the interests of public health. I was motivated in this regard by having read in the newspapers about the action of the United States Cancer Society in calling for a complete ban on cigarette advertising in the United States. I have raised this or a similar question 10 or 11 times previously in the house. When I raised this question several days ago I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. It seemed to me that if there is anything which has to do with the national public interest it is the question of proposed legislation to deal with the control or prevention of one of the greatest contributing factors to disease in Canada.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words this evening in respect on this question, and I should like to mention very briefly a few facts. It is a fact that although our
November 6, 1967	COMMONS
educational program in Canada costs $600,000 on a five year basis, it has had some moderately good results in encouraging people to give up cigarette smoking. Three hundred Canadians, mostly youngsters, start smoking every day-9,000 a month. Many of these people, including youngsters, begin smoking largely because of the massive advertising campaigns conducted by the cigarette companies. The officials of the health department in this and other countries of the world believe that cigarette smoking is very injurious to health and in many cases promotes early death.
The cigarette companies, in order to promote their product, spend about $400 million at the present time in the United States. Recently, as we know, the broadcasters in the United States have been ordered by the federal communications commission to give some time on their stations, whether radio or television, for messages designed to offset the inducement type of advertising carried on by the cigarette companies. If this is continued for any length of time there is a possibility that perhaps further legislation will not be necessary.
When an equal amount of time is given to the broadcasting of messages by the cancer and heart agencies it is possible that the cigarette companies will find that they are subsidizing health material to the detriment of their own product, and because of this they may very well decide to reduce their advertising through the broadcasting media.
I should like to see the minister give consideration to action similar to that taken by the federal communications commission in the United States and encourage, or in fact order, our broadcasting outlets to make time available for the broadcasting of health material in an effort to combat cigarette sales promotion.
I should like to conclude by asking the question I attempted to ask the other day on orders of the day. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare take some steps to regulate advertising of this unsafe product? Perhaps I might add one more thought. I wonder whether the minister has made the decision, as he suggested he might, to turn over to a committee this whole question of cigarette smoking, health and advertising. I would suggest the appropriate one would be the committee on health and welfare. This matter could be studied by the committee and some decision might be arrived at.
DEBATES	3959
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather). I can only say that the United States Cancer Society report which was quoted in the press yesterday further underlines the seriousness of the health problem associated with cigarette smoking.
The department's smoking health program is based on full recognition of this program. For some time we have held the view that further measures probably requiring legislative action for their implementation would be required to complement our educational and research efforts. We are examining such measures at this time. Having regard to the hon. member's question about referring this subject to a committee, probably the committee on health and welfare, let me indicate that no such decision has been made at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-USE OF RESERVE OFFICERS AS LANGUAGE INSTRUCTORS

Lewis Mackenzie Brand: During last summer a constituent of mine, an English teacher and also a captain in the army reserve, received information that there were in army terminology call out positions available for teachers at the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean, Quebec. Since he is a teacher and was interested in learning French as well as teaching English in such circumstances, he made inquiries and eventually a formal application for such a position. When he was informed by telephone that such a position was indeed available, he applied as instructed to technical command headquarters in Winnipeg, which forwarded his request to the Canadian Forces headquarters for ratification. The command officer in command of the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean forwarded a wire requesting his service, in military parlance "soonest". He waited, but as often happens in military matters, time passed by until he actually became somewhat worried. He had not signed a contract for the next year, hoping of course that he would receive this position. He received assurances from the technical command headquarters in Winnipeg, specifically from Major Komph, that the delay was only temporary and ratification would be forthcoming. As a consequence of this assurance he did not sign a teaching contract, and then found he could not return to the master's program at university since the quota had been filled by this time.
November 6, 19S7
3960	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Perhaps he was unwise in taking for granted the assurance of the technical command headquarters, and perhaps he should have gone ahead and taken employment. However, he felt that because of the assurances he had received and his great desire to teach in the Canadian Forces language school, he should wait. He now finds himself in a difficult position, since he is unable to take a position for which his qualifications fit him at this tune. He remembered the words of the white paper on defence, in which it was stated that greater use would be made of militia and reserve personnel in reserve forces positions.
A more recent statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) on the matter of C.O.T.C. and other units was to the effect that they would be disbanded and more use would be made of reserve units in order to improve their efficiency and make them fit better into the pattern of regular forces. On many occasions we have heard that the Canadian Forces are short of trained and qualified officers. This young captain is trained and qualified.
Finally after all hope had passed for him to obtain a job to fit his qualifications he received a refusal from the technical command headquarters, with an apology for not having written sooner, since apparently someone had forgotten to do so. The reasons for refusal were, first of all that there had been a cut-back in armed services personnel and consequently his application would have to be deferred indefinitely, and that unfortunately all positions had been filled at the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean, Quebec. They were prepared to offer him a technical position rather than a professional one for a period of one year at much lower pay and on a temporary basis, without any guarantee or contract. What a rebuff to a young educational officer anxious to serve his country.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I did a little digging in this matter. I can understand the cut-back in the armed services personnel but I had a little more difficulty understanding why the department would cut back on trained officer personnel, of which they were short. I wondered whether there were any positions available in the Canadian Forces language school, and purely by chance I obtained a copy of the roster of the school at St. Jean which contains in it 
the positions presently filled and, surprisingly enough, the vacancies that exist.
I am looking through this document, which I understand is not in the top secret class but rather in the restricted category. I find that we have at least five vacancies in the types of positions which could be filled by this young educational officer. I am rather concerned about this and would very much appreciate an answer from the minister. I appreciate his courtesy in being here this evening at such a late hour. Perhaps he is not aware that these vacancies exist, and I will be happy to make this document available to him if it is not already in his possession.
I would appreciate something being done in this respect, in view of the vacancies that exist and the anxiety of this young educational officer to serve his country in a manner for which I believe he is eminently suited.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) has made some very interesting comments tonight. I think his suggestion of using qualified reserve officers is worthy of examination by the departmental officials. I must say that we are aware that some vacancies do exist at the Canadian Forces language school at St. Jean, because there seems to be a countrywide shortage of qualified language instructors. It strikes me that many of the reserve officers who are so qualified are probably engaged in language instruction in their civilian occupations. To use them to fill positions at the language school might alleviate our problem at the expense of others. This is one aspect that would have to be examined.
I thank the hon. member for his remarks and I shall ask my departmental officials to examine his suggestion. There is a further aspect in this particular case which we are investigating in answer to a letter from the hon. member. I hope the answer we will provide will prove satisfactory to him.



POLLUTION-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to resume tonight my request to the house leader and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to refer to the appropriate committees of the House of Commons Bill No. C-25, an act to control air
November 6, 1967	COMMONS
pollution, which I introduced in this house and which was given first reading on May 11, 1967, and also Bill No. C-171, to amend the Criminal Code with respect to air and water pollution, introduced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on October 25, 1967.
I hope I do not have to convince anyone in this house that air pollution is a major national problem which requires urgent attention by all levels of government. Evidence is mounting, especially from the industrialized centres of the country such as Toronto and Montreal, that dangerous levels of air pollutants have already appeared on several days. Medical authorities have also stated that there is a distinct relation between atmospheric pollution and certain respiratory diseases. We are also told by certain medical authorities that living in polluted downtown urban areas, or driving more than 12,000 miles in similar downtown areas, increases considerably the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers.
In Canada some legislation for the control of air pollution has already been enacted in five provinces but there is a wide variation in the legislation of those provinces dealing with air pollution. To date no authority has been set up to deal with interprovincial air pollution problems.
Many industrialized countries have a clean air act and certain measures to enforce the legislation controlling air pollution. I believe that we in Canada must act more vigorously to combat air pollution before more damage is done to the health of our citizens and before major crises occur.
DEBATES	3961
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
By referring Bills C-25 and C-171 to the appropriate committees of the House of Commons and by calling in expert witnesses to these committees much would be learned about the nature and extent of the problem, and of what is being done and can and should be done without delay in our country. I believe also that this would give the Minister of National Health and Welfare an opportunity to state in detail what the government has already done, what it is doing now and what it proposes to do in the future about air pollution in our country.
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale knows of course of the great interest of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the problem of air pollution. Indeed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) spoke on this problem at great length in the house just recently, and also the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) a week ago spoke in Toronto about the problems of air and water pollution. I may say for myself that personally I have a great concern about the problems of air pollution.
I would like to assure the hon. member that the bills to which he has referred are certainly important in so far as the department is concerned, and I can tell him that they are being given every consideration. A decision will be made very soon with regard to their reference to the appropriate committee.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, November 7, 1967