1967-05-30

Mr. Steven Otto (York East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, to amend' the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, this is a small amendment but I think a very meaningful one. The purpose of this bill is to convey to new Canadians and to landed immigrants in a meaningful way the commemoration of our centennial. Under this bill every legally landed resident of Canada will be entitled to receive citizenship papers on or after July 1, 1967, our national birthday, without waiting for the five year period or any other qualification save and except taking the oath of allegiance. It may surprise hon. members to know that there are over a quarter of a million residents of Canada who are entitled to take out citizenship papers but who for one reason or another have not done so. I believe that if this bill is passed, or the government sees fit to pass legislation to this effect, many future citizens of Canada will have cause to remember our national birthday as the day on which they became citizens of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-122, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to legalize abortion, a practice that is very widespread in Canada and elsewhere. This bill seeks to end a situation where a law which cannot be enforced is brought into disrepute, and where illegal and bungling
methods endanger the lives and health of growing numbers of women. It provides for the termination of a pregnancy, first, where the continuation of such pregnancy would involve serious risk to the life or grave injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; second, where there is substantial risk of a defective child being born; and third, where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. It provides that such pregnancy shall be terminated only on the advice of two registered medical practitioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH CONTROL AND THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-123, to amend the Criminal Code (birth control).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make it entirely legal to distribute birth control information and devices; in addition, to make it entirely clear that therapeutic abortions are legal, and to prescribe safeguards for carrying out such abortions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



THE BUDGET


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish to table copies of the usual budgetary papers in English and in French, and I would ask the consent of the house to have these papers appended to today's Votes and Proceedings and also included as an appendix to Hansard of Thursday, June 1, when I intend to present the budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 30, 1S67

Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



MIDDLE EAST-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind the fact that the security council met yesterday and is to meet again this afternoon to discuss the perilous situation in the Middle East, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether there were any hopeful signs in the discussions which have already taken place?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for indicating that he proposed to ask this question. As my hon. friend knows, the security council met yesterday and will meet again this afternoon at three o'clock to continue its consideration of the situation in the Middle East. It met first on May 24 at the request of Canada and Denmark, and then adjourned until the Secretary General had returned from Cairo and made his report, which was issued on May 27. His report is inscribed on the agenda, as well as an item put on the agenda by the delegate of the United Arab Republic.
Consultations are now taking place with a view to reaching agreement on what action the council might take. Efforts are focusing on the idea of an appeal to the parties to exercise restraint in support of one of the recommendations of the Secretary General based on the following section from his report:
In my view, a peaceful outcome to the present crisis will depend upon a breathing spell which will allow tension to subside from its present explosive level. I therefore urge all parties concerned to exercise special restraint, to forgo belligerence and to avoid all other actions which could increase tension, to allow the council to deal with the underlying causes of the present crisis and to seek solutions.
Yesterday the Canadian ambassador, who intervened in the debate, urged that interim action by the council was desirable along the lines suggested by the Secretary General as a prelude to more specific action by the United Nations later when consultations might, as he said, "allow us to reach a maximum amount of understanding on what the next step should be".
The council will be meeting at three o'clock, and we will have to await the outcome of the meeting this afternoon to see what happens tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. In view of the fact that the appeal by Premier Kosygin of the U.S.S.R. to both Israel and the U.A.R. to refrain from any precipitous action gave a good deal of encouragement to those who hoped that a war could be averted, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received through diplomatic channels any corroboration of President Nasser's claim that the U.S.S.R. has given him a guarantee that it will help him maintain a blockade of the gulf of Aqaba.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have no information with regard to this reported statement. I believe that the Soviet union has suggested to all parties involved that restraint and moderation in the situation should be exercised.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell us if, following the conference of the Canadian Council for the Blind held last week end in the maritimes, he received a telegram requesting the abolition of the means test for the blind who apply for a pension and if he intends to consider that rightful request during the present session?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the outstanding work that has been done by the Canadian component in peace keeping operations, is it the intention of the government to maintain the force intact in the event that its services may be required again in the future?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to deal with that question, may I say the Canadian contingent to the United Nations emergency force was composed of components of the service elements of the army, in other
May 30, 1SS7	COMMONS
words the ordnance, the R.C.E.M.E. and so on. Therefore it is not the kind of unit which would normally be kept intact. It is not comparable, for example, to an infantry battalion. We have on stand-by an infantry battalion in case it is required for United Nations purposes, but the troops that we contributed to the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East kept the services in operation for the contingents from other countries. Therefore it is not the kind of component which would normally be kept separate as a unit.
I can assure my hon. friend, however, that one of the basics of our policy is to have in our force the elements which can be used from time to time as required for United Nations or for any other purposes. We have been able on each occasion to respond to the needs of the United Nations, and I expect we would be able to continue to do so at any time in the future if this was in the national interest of our country.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that some 300 members of the militia are to be sent to our Canadian brigade in Germany to temporarily plug the hole in personnel requirements, is it the government's intention to redirect any of the recce units when they return from the Gaza strip to the European theatre under our NATO commitments?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such plan as indicated by my hon. friend. We are, of course, as part of the plan for the use of the militia, giving them more training with the regular forces. We feel that in this way they will be in a higher state of readiness in case of emergency. But I know of no such plan as indicated by my hon. friend. I will take his question as notice, but I do not think in fact-


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister saying that he does not know 300 men are going to Germany?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I know we are exercising the militia with the regular forces, but I do not know that there is a contingent of that size going. I would certainly want to check before confirming that information.


Harold Edward Winch: The number is 304.
DEBATES	719
Inquiries of the Ministry OIL



PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF PIPE LINE TO CHICAGO AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with our petroleum industry. Has the Prime Minister had word from his minister of mines and energy that he has received United States approval to build a petroleum pipe line to tap the valuable Chicago market, as reported this morning?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I shall have to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
On May 16, in the absence of the minister, I put a question to the parliamentary secretary as follows:
In view of the massive imports of eggs into the province of Quebec which work undue hardship on our own producers, would the parliamentary secretary tell us what steps the minister will take to remedy the situation which is detrimental to our farmers?
In his reply, the parliamentary secretary informed me that he would bring this matter to the attention of the minister and that the latter would reply.
Is the minister in a position to reply today?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to reply today, but I shall try to have an answer for the hon. member tomorrow.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he inform the house when the government expects to proceed with the divorce legislation, which has been noted in the speech from the throne?
May 30, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it will be as soon as we can get to it, when the committee has completed its work. That will not be before the autumn, I should think.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister can say whether the plan followed by the Greek army in its recent insurrection was based on a NATO plan for handling communist governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is acceptable.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) raised a question in regard to an alleged violation of the Canada Elections Act by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the week end period prior to yesterday's by-elections.
I have looked into this matter with the corporation and am informed as follows. Last week, in view of Monday's voting and the provisions of the elections act in regard to broadcasting, instructions were sent to the C.B.C. stations in Ottawa and Montreal and to the affiliate in Sudbury to have the "Nation's Business" radio program, scheduled for broadcast on Sunday afternoon, either prereleased before Saturday or held over until after the by-elections.
These instructions were observed in the cases of Montreal and Sudbury. At C.B.O. Ottawa, however, through an administrative error these instructions were not carried out, and the program in question was carried on this station at 12.55 p.m. Sunday in violation of the 48-hour blackout provision of the elections act.
The matter has been drawn to the attention of the Board of Broadcast Governors and the chairman informs me that consideration is being given to what action, if any, might be taken by the board against the C.B.C.



PROTECTION OF DRUGGISTS IN REMOVAL OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement in answer to a question yesterday, when he said it would be the intention of the government to proceed with the removal of the sales tax on drugs, will he consider protecting the druggists who have on hand large inventories of drugs on which they have already paid the 12 per cent tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this problem has been very much in our minds.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the speedy return to Canada of our service personnel from the Gaza strip, will the minister inform this house whether the support equipment including transport and signals has been or will be repatriated? If not, who will be the beneficiary at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): The bulk of the force has now been evacuated; there is, however, a rear party in charge of the evacuation of that equipment which belongs to Canada. I understand that equipment belonging to the United Nations is to be disposed of in accordance with directions emanating from the United Nations in New York.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he in a position to say when his special task force on agriculture will be established? When will its personnel be constituted?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to obtain a chairman of the highest possible calibre to head this task force. We hope to succeed in having him appointed very shortly.
May 30, 1967



INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Does the minister intend to meet with the provincial ministers of agriculture before June 10, 1967, and see to what extent they are prepared to co-operate so as to help him meet the requirements of the dairy producers in Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there are no arrangements to meet the provincial ministers now, but I shall be glad to meet them if that could be of any assistance to the dairy farmers.
Hon. Theogene Hicard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-
Bagot): Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister pattern his policy on the dairy policy of the Quebec government?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say how soon the government will introduce its legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to the level of benefits under that act, and the other changes the government intends to make?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The work is well advanced on the new program, but I doubt if the actual legislation can be introduced before the summer adjournment.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Gueens-Lunenburg):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the impact upon the price of fish in the Atlantic provinces resulting from a ruling by the government of Quebec regarding compensation payments to Quebec fishermen this year, will the minister indicate whether he has discussed this prob-
Supply-Secretary of State lem with the minister of fisheries of Quebec and other fisheries ministers who are affected by the Quebec action?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I wish to inform the hon. member that such a decision was taken by the government of Quebec without any consultation whatsoever with representatives of the federal government. I have expressed my concern to some of the senior officials of the Quebec fisheries department, but I have had no discussions on the matter with the minister responsible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Will he give consideration to calling a conference with the other ministers of fisheries for the provinces concerned to discuss this very important question?


Mr. Robichaud:: The decision by the government of the province of Quebec does not come under federal jurisdiction. Should the provincial governments concerned desire to call such a conference, I would be prepared to give all the assistance possible.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
2.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,648,900.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the department and some of the agencies for which I am responsible and for which I report to parliament, before I attempt to answer any specific questions which may be put to me. I shall try to be non-controversial and brief.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Starting with the department proper, I should like to say that the increased financial requirements are due principally to a new formula for making payments to the provinces in respect of post-secondary education, and the second and more expensive stage of the construction of the national arts centre.


Mr. Walker:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of meetings going on in the house at the moment and I am finding it difficult to hear.
722	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State


The Chairman:: Order. It is difficult for hon. members to hear what is being said by the Secretary of State.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was explaining that the estimates are up this year principally because of the new formula for making payments to provinces in respect of post-secondary education, and to cover the cost of the second stage of the national arts centre, the opening of a new museum of science and technology, the cyclical salary increases and a general acceleration in practically all the departmental programs, citizenship, translation and so on.
If I might deal with these one by one, I should like to begin with the centennial commission. The estimates will show a decrease of more than $9 million. This is due, of course, to a natural and gradual reduction in the work of the commission. It is expected, however, that there will be some supplementary estimates later this year to cover certain costs which could not be effected last year and which will be brought forward in the current year.
I should like to mention some of the programs which have been successful, and to thank all hon. members in all parts of the house for the time and effort they have generously given to ensure that all Canadians will be able to celebrate the centenary without regard to the politics of any of us.
The confederation train has won popular acclaim far beyond our expectations. Attendance has been averaging between 8,000 and 10,000 per day, and over one million people have visited it so far. Similarly, each of the eight caravans which commenced operations about a month ago, on May 1, has attracted between 5,000 and 10,000 visitors daily and collective attendance is nearing the million mark. It is estimated that by the end of the year eight to ten million people will have seen the train and caravans. As yet no decisions have been made with respect to whether the train or the caravans will be used beyond 1967 either at home or abroad, but we are receiving from the provinces and other agencies a number of suggestions with regard to their possible use. It has been suggested that they might be used, after some modification, for promotional purposes outside the country.
With respect to the youth travel program, this is made up of two elements, the federal-provincial program and the voluntary program. They have been in operation for the past three years and this year they are being expanded. In 1967 some 4,800 young people

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
will travel under the federal-provincial program, and 78 voluntary agencies will receive grant assistance. The programs have been so enthusiastically received as a means of getting young people to know one another across the country that it has already been determined that this is one of the schemes which will go forward, probably under the aegis of the department of citizenship, in the years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A word about the performing arts program. The assistance given to performing arts companies including Festival Canada and others on tour as part of this program has made it possible to bring a wide variety of cultural and popular entertainment to both large and small communities throughout the country. Attendance to date has been considerably larger than was estimated, and the program has been very well received. To begin with the fare provided was "long hair" rather than "short hair", in the old, classical definition of the term-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -but lately some of the newer "long hairs" have been stimulated by the addition of more popular programs which will be touring throughout the year. For the first time there is an opportunity to build audiences in parts of the country where people have not had a chance to see live entertainment before. Through a program which subsidizes tickets, people are able to take young students and parents are able to bring their families to see live entertainment for the first time. This again is one of the programs which is being evaluated to assess the possibility of carrying it on in subsequent years.
I might add that the provinces co-operate with the federal government in subsidizing tickets under this program, so its future would have to be worked out in consultation with the provinces. Furthermore, in some cases the performers are receiving payment smaller than they would normally receive, this being a centennial project in which they are participating, and we could not expect this arrangement to continue. But the warmth of the response to the program has encouraged us to look into this matter further to see what might be done in years to come.
The Voyageur Canoe pageant which is due to terminate in Montreal the first week in September has already begun, ten canoes taking part manned by crews of ten men from
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
the provinces and the two territories. I believe the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are the only ones which are not involved because it was not possible for them to find paddlers. The program got off to a tremendous start at Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, and as the canoes travel toward Saskatchewan this event is stirring great interest among those of us who look upon it as one of the most exciting of the centennial programs.
Those are the purely federal programs, some of them, as I have mentioned, carried out in co-operation with the provinces. In addition we have had occasion to build structures of a lasting nature such as cultural and recreation centres, libraries, parks and other community projects. I am sure every hon. member has already been involved in at least one opening ceremony in connection with these projects in his or her constituency. Thus we have been able to celebrate the centenary by means of programs and projects of national significance as well as by local programs which seem to be increasing in intensity as we approach July 1.
This year has given us the opportunity to take a long look at ourselves, to assess the point at which we have arrived and consider, perhaps, the direction we may wish to take in the future. It seems to me that already we can sense a real increase in pride of country among Canadians, and certainly an increase in confidence in ourselves as Canadians; one does not have to be a little apologetic about it. I think a healthy and grown up attitude toward Canada has been encouraged by the wholehearted participation of Canadians in the celebration of our first hundred years.
That is a short description of the centennial programs. I shall be happy to answer any questions which hon. members may wish to ask on this subject.
I turn now to the Board of Broadcast Governors. The increase in the amount of the vote in this year's estimates reflects a greater number of personnel required to deal with increasing responsibilities being placed upon the board and contemplated later in the year, as well as cyclical salary increases.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
With respect to the C.B.C., the amount here is again up, partly due to salary increases. Some of these arose from the settlement of the threatened strike last year. Another part of the increase is due to centennial programming, and I think most hon. members will
DEBATES	723
Supply-Secretary oj State agree that the broadcasting corporation has given a great deal of its time to this. The latest of these programs was the filming in St. John's, Newfoundland, on Saturday night last of the dominion drama festival finals. The corporation has also had additional programs dealing with Expo '67. Another part of the increase is due to the increase in colour programs to the extent permitted by policy, as well as interest on capital loans. These are the chief headings under which the C.B.C. has additional financial requirements, as shown in the blue book.
The office of the Chief Electoral Officer, shown independently from the Department of the Secretary of State, also has an increase in its vote primarily due to a slight increase in staff and to the cyclical salary increases.
On page 328 of the blue book will be found the estimates of the National Film Board. Here again there are increases. I am informed that these increases result from increased salaries including the cyclical pay revisions, the educational film program to meet the growing demand for audio-visual aids in support of better learning and communication methods, more prints for distribution in order to keep pace with the population growth particularly in the 20 largest urban centres in Canada, and also to provide much needed information material for Canadian diplomatic posts abroad, to continue the colour conversion program, and to provide for new distribution offices of the film board in Detroit and Tokyo.
The estimates for the National Gallery of Canada are to be found at page 334 of the blue book. The major reasons for the increase in this vote are more funds for the purchase of works of art for the national collection, the emphasis on major exhibitions and on audiovisual educational materials, salaries for additional positions, cyclical salary review and, for the first time, provision for office furniture and furnishings. During the past year under its new director the gallery undertook a very active program with a view to reaching Canadians everywhere in Canada to encourage them to participate in the cultural life of the nation. This seems to have been very successful, judging by the numbers of people coming to the gallery and the well attended lecture programs. The 1967-68 program reflects the continuation and further development of this role.
The estimates for the public archives and national library are to be found at page 406 of the blue book. The national library and
724	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State archivts building, which was begun recently, has just been completed and we anticipate it will be opened on June 20, so that some of the service requests and reference services which are already being provided will increase at a much greater rate. Since the employees have been moving into the building from the beginning of the year it is still too early to say what kind of savings will be effected, but I suggest to hon. members, if they have not been in the building, that they go and take a look at it. Dr. Lamb is particularly proud not only of the building's appearance but of its new facilities.
The estimates for public printing and stationery are to be found at page 406 of the blue book. This vote shows a decrease in financial requirements. The principal reason is that a great number of centennial publications will not require to be printed during the current financial year.
On page 410 of the blue book are the estimates for the Public Service Commission, which reflect a number of changes from the 1966-67 estimates. Some of these are due to Bills C-170, C-180 and C-181, passed during the last session, which resulted in three organizational groups leaving the newly formed Public Service Commission. The bureau of classification revision and the pay and standards branch were transferred to Treasury Board. The pay research bureau became part of the public service staff relations board. The major increases occur in the language bureau and the staffing branch. The language bureau has developed very rapidly and the increase provides for increased classroom facilities, new language teachers, and funds for the purchase of homes and furnishings under the bicultural program in Quebec and Toronto. The rest of the increase is attributable mainly to increased activity in the staffing branch in the areas of travel, advertising and professional services.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a very cursory look at my responsibilities, but I would be very happy to answer any questions. It is hoped that broadcasting will be looked into. It has already been gone into in some depth by the standing committee, which will be meeting on the subject of educational television during the summer. It is hoped that the amendments to the Radio Act will be placed before the house soon, at least for first reading, so the amending bill may be considered during whatever summer recess we are able to have. It can then be discussed by the standing committee in the fall and hopefully the bill, with

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
any desired amendments, will be passed during this calendar year. As to senior appointments within the C.B.C., it is not now anticipated that they will await new legislation. It is thought the appointments will be made under the old legislation within a relatively short period of time.
The citizenship responsibilities which came under the Department of the Secretary of State on October 1 last have resulted in a bill which I understand will be before the house tomorrow. It was hoped that a new citizenship act could be passed during this centennial year, with all its symbolic significance, but in order to effect some of the really desperately needed changes amendments have been brought forward. It is hoped that whatever minister is responsible will produce a completely new citizenship act in the not too distant future.
During the last year the Department of the Secretary of State has been responsible for some most interesting and relatively unusual preoccupations, one of these being the arrangements for the funeral of the late governor general, and another being the arrangements for the installation of the new Governor General. While they have been the responsibility of the Department of the Secretary of State I should like to say they have been effected mainly by the tremendous efficiency of what is in fact a very small department, and particularly by the under secretary of state. I should like to pay a tribute to him and to his staff for effecting on those two occasions what were really a couple of miracles within a relatively short time.
There will be a number of other protocol occasions which my department will be responsible for when the royal visit takes place in another month. While my department is not responsible for the visit as such, there being a special office set up for it and reporting to the Prime Minister's department, yet we do have certain responsibilities and I understand hon. members will be given some detailed information on this matter within a few days.
If there are questions concerning any part of the department or the agencies for which I am in some measure or other responsible, I should be very happy to answer them.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, the severity of my criticism will have nothing to do with the wonderful job the minister has been doing over the last couple of months vis-a-vis the centennial celebrations, but I must say that those of us who are in opposition to the
May 30. 1967

government had expected a rather complete statement on the government's intentions, first about satellite broadcasting and second and more importantly, about educational television.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The minister rushed in to the house not so many weeks ago with a piece of paper containing the supplementary estimates, and told us if we did not pass them forthwith this would mean the end of educational television for a couple of provinces. As often happens in this parliament, the rush of the moment does not stand the test of closer analysis. I would have thought, however, that whatever was there to support the minister's urgent request of some weeks ago would equally support her statement on her estimates. I will perhaps have more to say about this in a moment, though I should like briefly to examine one or two of the responsibilities of the minister and then, like everybody else in parliament, talk about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My comments about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will mainly be complimentary.
First I should like to mention the change in the National Film Board and wish the new commissioner, Dr. Hugo MacPherson, well. I think the minister will agree that he is taking over a going concern, and I should like to mention an informal meeting the broadcasting committee held last December at the National Film Board building in Montreal.
The knowledge and concern for the operation of this first rate federal agency of the acting commissioner, Grant McLean, was as obvious to members of the committee as it was remarkable. His knowledge as well as his frankness certainly delighted me, as I am sure it delighted many others who were used to some of the less than frank comments made many times when members of parliament have asked questions. As I say, I wish the new commissioner well, and the fact that he has asked Mr. McLean to carry on and run the board is testimony to the efficiency of that senior official.
This is a good juncture at which to pay special tribute to a senior public servant who has served the agency for so many years, and who for 14 months served the board and Canada in the never easy role of acting commissioner. Our public service and Canada have been fortunate to have had this type of loyalty and dedication.
Supply-Secretary oj State
Let me now break with some members of parliament and talk for a moment about the National Gallery and its acquisitions, and beg my colleagues here to keep their hands off the problems of gallery acquisitions, which should be the responsibility of the director and trustees. When we think of acquisitions we should remember that we are not buying for this year's estimates, for this decade or even for this century. We may be buying, and this is not too extravagant a thing to say, for a millennium. I get very tired of seeing people rushing to the press or other media saying my gracious, we are spending a couple of million dollars on an acquisition; because if this was amortized over the generations it would be an insignificant part of the money spent in this country to acquire priceless things.
We are all jumping up and down about Expo, and rightly so. We do not seem to mind-I certainly do not-that we have been able to find $225 million for that site, and I do not know even whether that figure is correct because it seems to be escalating, to use a new word. If in our joy about Expo we can also think of some permanent acquisitions for the public wealth of this country, then we would not be so quick to criticize when a million or two or even three or four is spent on priceless works of art.
Recently I had the privilege of reading a profile about a rather interesting person, Mr. Thomas Hoving, who did something rather remarkable for the city of New York. He really transformed the parks and other public amenities in that great city. This is the type of support I hope the minister, the gallery people and trustees will have in so far as acquisitions of works of art are concerned. Quality should be the main consideration, coupled with trust in the competency of the officials we put in charge of these public institutions. Whether they spend $1 milion or $2 million matters not over the centuries.
I am glad the minister spoke about the plan for continuing the youth travel program. It is remarkable that 4,800 young people have had the benefit of this program, and many of us applauded the minister when she said the program would be continued. It is my hope that we do not become too self-centred about the program, and I am sure we will not. I am very anxious that our Indian and Eskimo children, for instance, will be given just as many opportunities to visit different places as are those of our youngsters who are, so to speak, in the mainstream of Canadian life.
726	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary o/ State
The minister has made it rather awkward to comment about television because she has just talked about some estimates that have .gone up. Of course they have gone up, and perhaps that should not worry us too much in this expanding field, although I thought for instance that satellites and educational television would be considered. I myself am sort of an old fashioned Bennett Tory when it comes to public broadcasting. Public broadcasting is, among other things, a great monument to R. B. Bennett; and as long as I am representing the constituency of Royal I will do everything possible to continue the primacy of public broadcasting in Canada. Having said that, that primacy must be accompanied by quality and generally speaking I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done a terrific job for this country.
One of the most ironic things about the move to bring French television to Quebec via satellite is that no account has been taken of the very poor quality of French television. French television is subject to almost the severest censorship of any in the world and, if my information is correct, it is boring. If that is what our compatriots want, once the satellite gets into operation they will understand what a really superb job Radio Canada has been doing for Quebec citizens in the field of French programming.
We must not underestimate the wishes and capacities of the people of Canada. When we think of broadcasting I suppose all of us have had examples of criticism about this or that individual program. I cannot help but recall a letter which appeared in one of our local newspapers at home in New Brunswick.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
When the Saturday afternoon or evening, whichever it was, wrestling matches were removed from television some farsighted person wrote and said, "What will the people of Kings county do now that 'rasslin' is off the C.B.C. on Saturday nights?" I think the people of Kings county can find something to do on Saturday nights without watching wrestling matches. This was perhaps five years ago. I do not believe that type of letter would be written now because I think some of the very special work that has been done by the C.B.C. has enriched the tastes of the public. Actually what it is all about here, is it not, is that we as members and the corporation should be challenging the capacity of the public? When we give up the challenge to pap and nonsense we are abdicating this responsibility.

DEBATES	May 30. 1967
Perhaps what I am about to say will be taken as too far reaching but I am going to say it anyway. I remember very clearly, as some hon. members do, the controversy about the so-called "Seven Days" matter. When we had an opportunity in the broadcasting committee to analyse this program we found that of 500 items which had been presented in the life of the program five only were held up to some public citicism. One of them-perhaps this will be the end of my public career but I might as well go with a bang as a whimper -was the matter of the inflating of the breast of the San Francisco go-go dancer. I watched that program and thought it was one of the most poignant and sad events I had seen depicted on television because it was the sale not of any erotic or obscene thing but of a person's dignity. Surely this was the point the program was trying to make. But little people, who have evil in front of their minds, took the wrong context and immediately rushed to the telephone and other communications media and brought the message to their members and to the people who were trying to show what really is obscenity. It was obscene to detract from the dignity of the human individual; that was the message.
I think the corporation should be allowed to continue with this type of challenge. There are many obscenities in life, far more than there are on any newstand down town in any of our cities. There is a very obscene event going on now across the world. There is another one in the Middle East, far more obscene in the true sense of that word than those that we nitpick about in respect of our public broadcasting corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A person for whom I have a great deal of admiration wrote a letter to the Carnegie commission which has just been investigating public television. In that letter this person said something that I should like to include as part of the comments I make. That delightful essayist, E. B. White, in a letter to the Carnegie commission on public television said:
Non-commercial television should address itself to the ideal of excellence, not the idea of acceptability-which is what keeps commercial television from climbing the staircase. I think television should be the visual counterpart of the literary essay, should arouse our dreams, satisfy our hunger for beauty, take us on journeys, enable us to participate in events, present great drama and music, explore the sea and the sky and the woods and the hills. It should be our Lyceum, our Chautauqua, our Minsky's, and our Camelot. It should
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
restate and clarify the social dilemma and the political pickle. Once in a while it does, and you get a quick glimpse of its potential.
I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does this a good many times, and I believe that rather than denigrate it all the time we would do well to take pride in its achievements. Challenge it, yes, but heaven forbid that I should ever enter the lists in standing in my place in parliament as a critic of quality and content in the narrow sense of programming.
The broadcasting committee has made a recommendation or two which I am sure the minister is considering when preparing legislation. I hope, for instance, that C.B.C. radio will be allowed to get out of commercial activity altogether, with certain exceptions. There are always exceptions that prove rules. We would not, of course, get the opera without the Texaco label, and so on. But I think it is an infinitesimal amount of money that we receive from commercial advertising on radio, and it might provide a good pilot way to get the corporation out of advertising altogether, which perhaps is the ultimate goal of some dangerous people in this parliament, including myself.
In so far as the satellite is concerned, I hope very much that we will follow the Canadian way of doing things and make the agency that controls the satellite a public corporation. I could not imagine the government that sits opposite to me doing anything other than this. This would follow, of course, my Bennettism very well. I suspect that this is what the government has in mind, although we have had very little information about it.
As one who lives on one of the edges of the country, so to speak, I am quick to acknowledge that Canadian broadcasting is unique in the world. I do not make claims that it is the best-it does not really matter what I claim -but I think it can be as good as any if we keep paramount the principles upon which it was founded and nurtured.
One of the things that the corporation does, for instance, for the peripheries of this country is give the public an opportunity to be challenged by criticism and opinion. We have the problem of one-newspaper cities. In some cases the radio and television outlets are run by the same proprietor as is the newspaper. I do not think that inherently there is a danger here, but unfortunately this type of thing prevents a really meaningful challenge to some of the pat ideas of the publisher and the editor, and so on. We in the southern part of
DEBATES	727
Supply-Secretary of State New Brunswick are anxiously awaiting the provision of a new C.B.C. television channel. The private station there is anxious to join the C.T.V. network. I hope that the corporation in its capital budget will soon provide this new facility in southern New Brunswick.
As I said earlier, I believe that the C.B.C. must have a special and primary position within the structure of broadcasting. I want to say what a very great privilege it was to serve on the broadcasting committee. It is an interesting thing to know that on that committee it was not so much the party position that was taken, if there is one

I always feel protected by the heritage I have from R. B. Bennett-but a position on the primacy of public broadcasting. It was not so much the party position as the primary position of public broadcasting. Some day when somebody is doing an analysis of committee reports he may find this an enteresting trend. Perhaps this ground could be explored at some seminar by the C.B.C. itself, on a summer day under a tree somewhere.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I believe that the profit motive must be subservient to the idea of service in the name of national policy and public interest. Even the president of the C.B.C. himself had to admit before our committee-this was a very crucial admission and, to give him credit, I do not think he liked making it-that there are really very few public affairs programs of national interest broadcast in prime time over the C.B.C. today. This is a serious admission for the corporation to have to make and a serious indictment of our interest in programming itself. The white paper says:
-the determination to develop and maintain a national system of radio and television broadcasting in Canada is an essential part of the continuing resolve for Canadian identity and Canadian unity.
I think that is true, and that is why it is so important to see that a good many programs on public affairs and news, which will serve to strengthen the very purposes for which the corporation is set up, are given prime time. Unless we really mean what we say in the white paper and in the broadcasting report we might as well surrender the whole idea. I do not think the people of this country want that type of surrender, unless I am misinterpreting their views.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question?
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State [Translation]
I should like to put it in French, if the hon. member will allow me. Is he in favour of the C.B.C. building throughout the country relay stations which would retransmit the French programs of the C.B.C.'s French network in order to enable our English-speaking compatriots to get a better insight into French culture?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member for Lotbiniere has asked an interesting question. I think this might be an interim concept leading to the day when we will cease to need relays. I think the minister made a very significant comment in Newfoundland when she said that the French prize-winning play was the first one she had seen since high school. I regret to say that most of us would have to admit the same. I like to look forward to the day when we will not need relays any more, when we will be able to turn on the television and if we come upon a superb French play we will sit back and watch it with understanding, or if it is Monique Leyrac, who is able to do more than any separatist for the advancement of the great French culture, we will be able to enjoy that program also. In the meantime, if relay stations will help to bring about this day, then let us build them.
I did have some important statements underlined but in view of the fact that the minister has not given us her own philosophy on this subject she will have to take the philosophy of the hon. member for Royal. In developing it I should like to quote an article by Eric Goldman called "Can Television Meet The Challenge Of The Future?" The parts I wish to read to the house are very relevant and bolster my argument that many times we underestimate the capacity of the country.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When was the article written?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I regret that I will have to supply the reference later. My filing system being as it is, this beautiful Xerox copy is undated. Xerox has not yet achieved a technique for supplying dates on copies of material. Mr. Goldman wrote the following:
-you know perfectly well what commercial t.v. is doing. It is doing what mass culture-whether the dime novels of the 1890's, the movies of the 1920's or today's t.v.-always does: It is catching up certain parts of popular thinking and taste, making them more emphatic and colorful, and handing them back. As such, one can shrug away the effects of t.v. on American civilization. It is, after all, another one of the facts of life.
[Mr. Choquette.J
Mr. Goldman was addressing the United States public. I am far from being a continen-talist but in this instance we have to admit the facts of life in public communication.
He went on to say:
We Americans have our nostalgias, and one of the most persistent is a picture of a premass-communications United States, filled with noble, uncorrupted citizens basing their judgments on an abundant and undefiled spring of facts. Unfortunately the nostalgia is largely nostalgia.
Farther on he wrote:
T.V. has also thrown open windows on the democratic process.
That may seem trite but perhaps in the whole context of my comments its relevancy will be seen. He continued:
-the citizen acquired a far greater sense of the real candidate-
He was speaking of television in elections. I will be coming to the point with which I will end television in the House of Commons.
-the cast of his personality, the temper of his mind, the essential nature of his attitudes.
Of course it was obvious to all of us that it was television which saved the American people once from Richard Nixon.
The author went on to discuss what are the components of the new civilization to which television is speaking. He wrote about the younger generation. Perhaps the emphasis on youth has been done to death. I find it harder to take as the birthdays go by. He wrote about "this youthful, educated, comfortably fixed metropolitan man or woman" in the new America. He called him "the Me-troamerican, with a quite different idea of the kind of life he wants to lead and the kind of country in which he wants to live". I think this is true, and out of it comes a far more compassionate and openminded person. I am not quoting Goldman here; these are my own words. I believe that the young people of today are more compassionate, more open-minded and will not put up with the irrelevant. One of the criticisms I could make of the other generations is that they put up with so much nonsense and irrelevancies. This is why it is going to be so much harder for us as members of parliament in the future. Youth is no longer deceived by all the nonsense, and unless we can show that we too have compassion and an open mind we will, like a good many people yesterday, not do too well in by-elections.
Perhaps the noise over the sound system is a signal for me to stop. Were I to choose a
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
theme it would be that we should stop denigrating the good, that we let the director and the trustees of the corporation buy quality, that we let the programmers in our great national corporation put on programs of good quality in prime time so that they can fulfil their mandate, and that we should not run for cover every time somebody criticizes us. I do not know whether they think members of parliament are producers. Sometimes when I go home and get the full flack from certain programs I wonder whether I should take out a membership in a producers' union or ACTRA. I never hope to stand here and criticize program content because I do not believe that is our job. I do sincerely believe that there is much more good in the public corporation, by overwhelming odds, than there is bad. I think that we-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Someone says, "Name one". Well now, that is a challenge. I do not have the television listings with me but I could start, for instance, as my rearguard mentions, with "Quentin Durgens". I believe that program has done a great deal to improve the understanding of what we are about here. However, I do not believe it is the best thing that ever happened.
I think, for instance, the corporation's news special over the week end about the Middle East crisis was very good. Very few corporations have the courage to do this. Fred Friendly, the great United States broadcaster, is out of private broadcasting because he could not challenge the greedy people who were not able to give up the public heritage of the publicly owned airwaves to tell the public about what the United States Senate foreign affairs committee under Senator Fulbright had to say about Viet Nam. I think we should take in the whole ambit of this challenge. I feel that the radio farm program has, for instance-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Not really, no; I believe that succinctness is a quality we should have. However, I should like to finish this challenge about the quality of the corporation.


Mr. Priilie:: "Nightcap"?
DEBATES	729
Supply-Secretary of State


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, "Nightcap". There is nothing wrong with "Nightcap". Nobody questions that program because all the prudes are in bed by this time. "Nightcap" was a gay program. The interesting thing about it is that those who were involved in it knew that they had come to the end of their gambit, so they have gone off to refresh themselves in other parts of the world and add their talents to other networks. "Nightcap" was good and gay. I know these are qualities that it has taken Canada 100 years to find acceptable.
I did not particularly like "Sunday" because I did not believe it was nearly as interesting as "Seven Days". I like "Seven Days". I had empathy with it, if anybody cares what I had with it. I remind my critic that there were only five items in the program that were challenged, and I feel those were mainly misunderstood. I believe that the hosts of "Seven Days" contributed immeasurably to the understanding of the challenge of television in this country.
May I quote from a very dangerous fellow, Sir Hugh Greene? Speaking about the conscience of the program director to the International Catholic Association for Radio and Television in Rome on February 9, 1965, he said:
At least in the secular and scientific fields- today's heresies often prove to be tomorrow's dogmas. And, in the case of the potential Ibsens of today, we must not, by covert censorship, run the risk of stifling talents which may prove great before they are recognized.
This might be a good place to end that challenge.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, may I first say how much I enjoyed the speech delivered by the hon. member for Royal. I always agree with him. I do not know if that makes me a Bennett Tory or him a New Democrat. Before I continue with my remarks I should like to ask two brief questions of the minister. The minister was making some remarks when someone spoke to me and I did not hear them. My first question is, did the minister say that broadcasting legislation would not be coming before the house in June, that is, not before the fall? Second did she say a committee would be considering educational television during the summer? I do not know what she meant by that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What I said was that the broadcasting legislation, which consists of the Radio Act and some other amendments to another act the name of which I have forgotten, and the educational television act are
730	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State contemplated for 1967. It is presently contemplated that within the next few months the main act will be before the house for first reading, will be exposed and sent to committee. It is hoped that it will be passed before the end of 1967. This is a much later timetable than we expected.
In other words, it would not be passed before the first of July so we would not seek to name the new officers after its passage but would name the new officers before we pass the bill. Although I did not say so at the time the first item for educational television was introduced, it was introduced because of the demands of the provinces that everything would be done to put it before the house. From the beginning I indicated that if there was opposition it would not be proceeded with and because there was opposition we did not proceed with it. There is no item in the estimates this year for educational television.
As I said outside the house because there was no opportunity to say it in the house since I could not revert to the item in the estimates, the educational television matter will be the basis of legislation. It will be introduced as a package with the other amendments to the broadcasting legislation and will go before the committee. It is expected that through that particular method or through the method of referring to the committee what is reserved of the white paper, the educational television matter will be before the committee and witnesses will be heard before the legislation is brought back to the house.


Robert William Prittie: I thank the minister for her replies to my questions. The general broadcasting legislation will be presented to us but not proceeded with until the fall. I trust that when the minister said the committee would hold its hearings on educational television during the summer she meant the month of June and not July or August. There are some procedural problems being raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I will ignore him for the moment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The difficulty may very well be that the subject matter will have to be referred to the committee.


Robert William Prittie: As long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is satisfied on that point, we can proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very satisfied.

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
a (4:00 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: The Department of the
Secretary of State must be one of the most all-embracing departments in the government. I notice that the various agencies and branches for which the minister reports are quite numerous. There is the citizenship branch, the Bureau of Translations, the National Museum of Canada, the centennial commission, the office of the representation commissioners, the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council, the C.B.C., the B.B.G., the National Film Board, Public Archives, National Library and National Gallery and the Chief Electoral Officer. I suppose the new Canadian Film Development Corporation should be included. I probably missed a number of the others. I see the Queen's Printer is here, so that is another one. The federal government is unfortunately having very little to do with higher education in the future, and I wish it was more concerned with it. However, with so many agencies and branches one has to make a selection and I will comment on just a few points.
The minister started off by referring to the centennial commission. I think that the centennial commission should receive the congratulations of all members of parliament. It appears to me from what I have seen, read and heard that the commission has done its work very well and that the centennial celebrations are going ahead in a very satisfactory manner.
I think that a special word of commendation should go to the commissioner, Mr. Fisher. I recall hearing Mr. Fisher on the radio a number of years ago, and I must say that it struck me at that time that he was a bit over-enthusiastic in his manner of speaking about Canada. At times I thought it was "a bit thick", but I realized that this man has a genuine enthusiasm and love for the country which he does convey, and I think that a man with those feelings and undoubted ability was necessary to get the centennial celebrations off to a successful start. So he does deserve our congratulations.
The minister referred to the centennial train and centennial caravans. I suppose that every member of the house has received complaints from different parts of the country that the centennial train and caravans did not stop in a particular area for a long time. This is true. I know that there is a schedule to meet for the spring, summer and fall months, but when you consider the number of school children alone in the more populous areas of
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
the country it is just impossible for everybody to see the train or the caravans.
The minister said that the question of their future use is under study. I suggest that at least the caravans should be offered to the provincial museums in each province. A great deal of work has been done to put these caravans together and I think it would be a great pity if they were disbanded following the centennial celebrations. If they were attached to the provincial museum in each province as a permanent historical exhibit they could then be made available by the province on a schedule to travel around to other parts in the years ahead. They could be changed from time to time but, as I say, the basic work has been done and I think they should be preserved.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Royal about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not intend to say very much about broadcasting today. I know that the hon. member for Royal was saying what he believes, but it has always struck me that if you praise some agency, especially the C.B.C, no one in the press gallery pays any attention to you. They much prefer to put in the paper such headlines as "M.P. Criticizes C.B.C." or "M.P. Slashes At The C.B.C.", so that the compliments of the hon. member for Royal will probably not be very widely reported. Nevertheless he spoke as he felt, and I think that this sort of thing should be done from time to time.
The minister said that the appointments to head the corporation will be made shortly. I realize the difficulties because I imagine that the new legislation will provide for different appointments from the kind we have at the present time. The broadcasting committee did make a recommendation that there should be a chairman of the board of governors or board of directors, and then a chief executive officer quite apart from that. I do not know how they are going to handle this problem.
However, Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing that the appointments will be made, because it is probably not a very good situation for the corporation to be surrounded by the air of uncertainty which has prevailed for some time. I believe it is now one and a half years since Mr. Ouimet announced that he would be retiring as president of the corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No-last October.


Robert William Prittie: I beg your pardon; it was about eight months ago. As I said, it is necessary for the corporation to have more certainty about
DEBATES	731
Supply*-Secretary of State its operations and, to be fair to Mr. Ouimet, this is also rather important for him too. He has very loyally remained with the corporation during this period knowing that he would be replaced. He is not an old man. He has his future to think about. With all his experience in broadcasting and engineering I am sure he will be in demand, and he wants to make his own arrangements for the future. Therefore it would be better both for the present president and for the corporation that whatever changes are going to be made should be made in the near future.
Mr. Ouimet has been a much maligned man. I have criticized him myself, and I was one of the critics of the corporation officials at the time of the "Seven Days" controversy. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the outstanding service he has given to the corporation over the years. I have often felt that his position might have been stronger if periodically he had taken a page out of the book of Mr. Donald Gordon and told members of parliament where to go once in a while when these criticisms were put forward.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Instead of just telling the government.


Robert William Prittie: The minister makes an interjection but I will pass over it at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not criticize both?


Robert William Prittie: I think that periodically the head of any public corporation has to say to the legislators that they have their job to do and that he has his and should be left alone to do his job while he is head of the corporation.
The hon. member for Royal mentioned satellites and said that he hoped the minister would make some statement about this subject. I, too, hope that we will have a statement on this subject soon. I would simply underline the remarks he made to the effect that any satellite operation in Canada should be under public control, especially under federal control.
The question of educational television has been mentioned. The broadcasting committee has been expecting to have this subject referred to it for some little time now. It is a very important subject and I hope that the advisers to the minister have not firmed up their ideas too much on this question. The broadcasting committee will be holding public hearings and inviting the representatives of all departments of education in the provinces
May 30, 19S7

Supply-Secretary of State to appear, as well as such other interested bodies as the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges, the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the C.B.C., the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and so on. I think it would be very wrong to draft any legislation until these public hearings have been completed and these people who have a very direct interest in educational television have had a chance to be heard.
Apparently these hearings may commence next month and continue in September. The subject is a very important one. However, there has never been any doubt in my mind that the transmission facilities have to be under federal ownership. The question of actual in-school broadcasting can be left to the provincial departments of education. When we get into the area known generally as adult education this is a different matter, and I do not know that this is an aspect which should be left to the provinces.
I hope that before the debate on the estimates of the minister is concluded she will say something about the new Canadian Film Development Corporation. It is some months now since we passed the legislation establishing this new corporation, and perhaps she will give us some report as to the progress which has been made in staffing it. We would also like to know what is happening about setting up a private film industry which it is hoped will be stimulated by this corporation. There is also the very important question of the relationship in the future between the National Film Board and the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I am not going to say anything more about this, but I hope that the minister will say something in this connection later.
At the beginning of my remarks I listed the various agencies for which the minister reports. Some of them perform very different functions so there cannot be any continuity in the remarks I wish to make about them. I want to say something at this point about the citizenship branch, which is one of the minister's responsibilities. A subject which has troubled me and has troubled other members of parliament has to do with the practice in Canada of refusing applications for citizenship and not giving the person who has been refused reasons for that refusal. That might be justified on the first application but it ought not to be permitted to continue forever and ever. Some people seem to be refused forever and ever. Let me cite some examples.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
One lady I know of, who is in her sixties and who came from the Ukraine, has lived in Canada for 40 years. She has applied for citizenship three times and each time has been refused. When a person has lived in this country for 40 years, has not left the country and is not likely to leave the country, he or she ought to be granted Canadian citizenship. The logical thing to do with undesirables is to deport them, but surely after 40 years of residence in Canada citizenship ought not to be denied.
Seldom does one know the reasons for the refusal, though sometimes in a confidential way one does learn. We suspect that applications are refused because applicants belong to the wrong Ukrainian organization or they have subscribed to the wrong ethnic newspaper. Often the excuse is as flimsy as that. Or the reason has something to do vaguely with communism. The applicants need not have been communist party members; it is enough if at some time in their lives they belonged to some organization which the authorities believe to be what is commonly called a front organization. This is not just.
I shall go farther. I am not at all sure that membership in the communist party in the past is sufficient reason for refusing citizenship to an applicant. I can think of neighbours and good friends in my constituency who were members of the Hitler youth organization. That was a long time ago. They explained that they belonged to the organization much as one joins the Boy Scouts. Those people fought in the German army. They are good citizens and I am not suggesting they are nazis, but they are Canadian citizens who have been granted Canadian citizenship notwithstanding their membership in the Hitler youth and the German army. I do not think that membership in any communist party in the past should be a reason for denying Canadian citizenship. Besides, the whole question is becoming more complicated every day, there being many different types of communist party. We have the Peking type, the Moscow type and independent parties such as in Yugoslavia. It must be difficult to draw distinctions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What if a person is a member at present?


Robert William Prittie: 
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity, when the estimates of the Secretary of State are under scrutiny to remind once again the minister of the needs in my riding with regard, first of all, to television.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) surely remembers that on several occasions in the five years since I have been a member of this house, I have asked the government to take appropriate steps so that the C.B.C. may provide French and English television programs to the various sections of my riding, the most important ones at least, which are still without it.
[Mr. Prittie.l
DEBATES	May 30, 19E7
Mr. Chairman, I am not the only one in this house to face these problems. I know that my colleagues for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) and for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard) have the same problems in their areas. There are also the hon. members for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) and so many others.
Therefore, this afternoon, I want to renew my request and ask once again the Secretary of State that sufficient funds be made available to the C.B.C. so that its services may be extended to all those areas which surely do not deserve to be penalized by the government because even though if they are remote, they render services to the country by providing it with the raw materials it needs.
Average salaries are high in the Chibouga-mau-Chapais area, a mining district in part, and the people pay a lot of taxes. If they want to take advantage of the services made available to the Canadian people by the C.B.C., such as, for instance, the news and the educational programs, although some of them are not very educational, I must admit, they must pay $200 for a cable which is provided by private enterpise, and $8 a month thereafter, as a subscription, which amounts to $100 per year the provincial tax on communications included. However, I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in the Chibougamau-Chapais area, we cannot even get continuous programs because one time we get one channel and another time another, so that it is impossible to follow some serials for instance, which is quite annoying for the people who pay the shot.
In my opinion the government should, as soon as possible, make adequate funds available to C.B.C. so that it may serve those areas. [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Indeed, when I happen to discuss the matter with C.B.C. representatives, I am told time and time again that there is no physical problem, but rather a financial one since there is a shortage of money to pay the cost of those services.
Mr. Chairman, there are a few facts I should like to point out to the house, but I see the hon. Secretary of State is absent. Still, as her parliamentary secretary (Mr. Bechard) is with us, I shall acquaint the house with what we have done to urge the C.B.C. or the government to extend those services to our regions.
Back home, there is more than just the Chibougamau-Chapais area; there is also the
May 30, 1967

bush country of Parent-Clova whose people certainly deserve radio and television services as much as other citizens elsewhere in Canada.
Last spring, I had the privilege of heading a delegation from the Parent region which first met the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to obtain certain explanations on the ADCOM line, that is the line of national defence, which goes through Parent, and then met the officials of the C.B.C. to find out what could be done with regard to radio and television services in the Parent-Clova area.
Mr. Chairman, during that meeting I learned that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intended to apply to the B.B.G. for a license to operate a frontier television station at Chapais. That made me happy, because although that was not exactly what the people of Chibougamau-Chapais and Parent-Clova had wanted, nevertheless, it was something better than what they now have, because at least they would have nothing to pay.
It was understood that a frontier station would not be entirely satisfactory, because broadcasts would come late. As far as movies are concerned, it is not terribly important, because generally the films shown on television are of a certain vintage, and whether they are presented a week or two late does not matter much. But the fly in the ointment is the news bulletins and news programs presented on television. Then, it becomes a little embarrassing to hear news bulletins that are late.
Mr. Chairman, the population of Chapais had greeted that news with some joy, but I had other information later on; in fact, right this afternoon, an officer of the corporation said to me that it would be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that would make the application and would set up a frontier station at Chapais.
On the other hand, a recent letter from the municipal corporation of the town of Chapais brings to my attention a very different situation and, to let the house know about a point on which there is no agreement in the C.B.C., I shall read that letter into the record, because there is something wrong here and I want this situation brought to light as soon as possible.
So here is the text of this letter dated May 9 and I quote:
Dear Mr. Laprise:
I have yours of April 12 last which was communicated to the members of the town council at the regular meeting of the 6th instant.
Supply-Secretary of State
All have expressed their sincere thanks to you for the great interest you have taken in the problem of television at home.
We would draw to your attention that the license which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proposes to request from the Board of Broadcast Governors for the operation of the frontier television station is due to the efforts of the management of Opemiska Copper Mines (Quebec) Limited who are footing the bill so that a local television service may be provided free to the residents of Chapais by means of films and tapes supplied by the C.B.C.
Although this will substantially contribute to the well-being of our community, the programs will not be carried live, but rebroadcast with one or two days delay. The Crown corporation could thus improve the system by giving and paying for live broadcast service to the area so as not to let a private company take over and supply a service which it is not obligated to give and which is not part of its normal operations, although the entire population of Chapais deeply appreciates the efforts of this company, undoubtedly indicative of the highly developed social awareness of the management.
Everyone hopes you will shortly have the pleasure of advising us that the C.B.C. is fulfilling all its obligations to our area by giving a live service and paying for it as it does elsewhere in Canada.
This, Mr. Chairman, reveals a situation quite different from the one that was suggested by the employees of the C.B.C. The latter tell me that the C.B.C. will be establishing a frontier station at Chapais while this letter from the town of Chapais advises me that the management of the Opemiska Copper Mines Quebec Limited will foot the bill instead of the C.B.C. and thus enter into an area which is of no concern whatever to them since they are engaged in a mining operation.
Now, to satisfy its employees, this company is forced to spend money to provide them with a frontier station. Consequently, I should like the Secretary of State to give us some information on this matter, and tell us who is going to provide television services in this municipality.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the house that a frontier station at least according to my information, although I am not a technician, cannot serve a region which is more than 10 miles in circumference. Now, since there are about 28 miles between Chapais and Chibougamau, if you set up a frontier station in the city of Chapais, it is obvious that the city of Chibougamau will be out of range.
So, here I am asking for more than a frontier station; I am asking for a direct service supplied by the C.B.C. to the whole population of these two cities, which exceeds 15,000 inhabitants. Those workers and miners
73S
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State are entitled to such services as much as any other Canadians.
I am coming now to the Parent-Clova forest region, where the population is entitled to the same services from the C.B.C.
While we propose or try to help the C.B.C. to find a solution to this problem of a signal channel for this region at moderate cost, we are told that to serve isolated regions such as this, the cost would be exorbitant, prohibitive, and we are quoted prices as high as $150,000.
Yet, two weeks ago, in the Parent-Clova area, a contractor from Amos, Mr. Edouard Dufresne, began to set up what is called in technical terms a parabolic system, to pick up the television signals of another station, of another transmitter and to rebroadcast them.
In fact, Mr. Dufresne stated that it would not cost $10,000 to provide the Parent-Clova area with a television station, while the C.B.C. technicians contend that it would cost more than $100,000 for the provision of the same service.
The Corporation's technicians may be contemplating a better service, for whenever they are told about what Mr. Dufresne has done for the cities of Malartic and Matagami and what he intends to do at present for the town of Parent and the area, they say they are not going to waste their time on makeshift installations.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the C.B.C. officials are remiss in their duties. They may have some knowledge, but thes' sit on it and they hinder the development of television in our areas. Therefore, that is what is inadmissible. What private enterprise can do at little cost, the C.B.C. and its officials-here I do not blame only the C.B.C. because it is the same thing with all the crown corporations-need thousands of dollars more to achieve the same result.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, even with a makeshift organization, perhaps, Edouard Dufresne succeeded in giving a perfect picture in Matagami, Malartic and everywhere, even in the city of Alma. Wherever his system has been installed, subscribers get a perfect signal and they are satisfied. I think that the C.B.C. technicians would benefit from visiting Edouard Dufresne's facilities and taking that private business as a model in order to give service at so little cost.
I think that if the C.B.C. wanted to, it could give in the areas I have mentioned here, Parent-Clova or Chibougamau-Chapais, as well as in every area which is still without service in Canada, the services given everywhere else by private or public enterprise.
If private enterprise, such as Radio-Nord for instance, cannot serve Chibougamau-Chapais or the Parent-Clova area, it is simply because it would not be economical to do so. Then, it is up to the government to extend its services to those less populated areas, which comprise communities important enough to justify such expenditures. I would ask the Secretary of State not to make excuses any longer for the officials of the C.B.C., but to provide them with the funds they need to extend their facilities to all those people.
Those are the comments I wanted to make -at least the most important ones-during the discussion of the Secretary of State's estimates.
Before concluding, I should like to make a remark concerning television in the House of Commons. An increasing number of people in our ridings tell us that the debates of the House of Commons should be telecast so that the Canadian people may be really informed of what is happening here.
However-and this is my own personal opinion-if it is decided to telecast the House of Commons debates, all debates would, I think, have to be telecast, and not only the question period. I suppose a channel could be reserved for these broadcasts for those who wish to see what is taking place in the House of Commons at any given time. Those who are not interested could continue to watch other programs.
Of course, that would be very costly and perhaps not very effective. In my opinion, to acquaint the people with what is going on in the house, it would be cheaper to distribute free of charge, on request, a copy of the official report. They would then have a document-and we know that written documents remain. Thus, those who are interested in the nation's business, in the debates, in what his member says or does in the house, would merely have to apply for a copy of the official report of the House of Commons Debates and it would be sent to them free of charge. That would be much cheaper and would give, I think, better results. Televising the debates would interest the people for some time only.

May 30, 1967	COMMONS
To my mind, interest in such broadcasts would soon peter out.
I wanted to state my views on the subject before this idea makes headway, because I realize that across the country, particularly in the province of Quebec, steps are being taken and a publicity campaign being launched to bring the public to demand that the debates of the house be televised.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I also felt that the review of the department we received this afternoon, while covering some most interesting activities of the many that come within the responsibility of this department, omitted any mention of some of those in which we are most interested and which are of great consequence to the development of Canada today. I was particularly pleased to hear the minister mention the dominion drama festival which has, as also have many other causes, been the recipient of centennial grants from the federal government this year.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to point out to the house that the city of Vernon, which I happen to represent, has through its little theatre, represented western Canada twice in the last three years at the dominion drama festival. It had that honour again this year and the cast and crew were able to make the very extended trip from Vernon to Newfoundland to participate in this year's festival.
Let me suggest that centennial grants should not just be a once in a lifetime occurrence but that the Department of the Secretary of State should consider very carefully the continuing need in this area for future support, mainly in order to overcome the difficulties faced as a result of the geography of this great country of ours. As federal support is forthcoming, and I hope it will be, I hope that the people who set up the regulations for the festival will seriously consider whether the time has not come when the entire part of Canada from Ontario west should be represented by more than one entry. It does not embarrass me at all to say that Vernon's little theatre has been chosen twice in the last three years, as the best entry from all of that territory, but to have but one western entry does seem to be a little out of proportion to the importance of western Canada in the life of this country and to the population that western Canada now boasts. I suggest that a look be taken at the census figures for all of that area, as well as a look
DEBATES	737
Supply-Secretary of State at the encouragement that has been given to drama there, particularly in the province of Alberta with its auditoriums in Calgary and Edmonton, and also in Vancouver with its civic auditorium.
The situation could be changed to broaden the representation from western Canada to at least two plays from that area. At the same time the regulations which are laid down for grants to the dominion drama festival concerning the division between cast and crew should be examined. Anyone who watched the C.B.C.'s telecast, which I think was a rather sad bit of television, would realize the importance of crews, sets and lighting to today's drama. To pretend any longer that five players can travel from one end of the country to the other, accompanied only by a director and an author and somehow present a play that would be considered at all seriously by the adjudicator and audience is a bit of wishful thinking and a relic of the past. I would hope we could have larger federal grants and a somewhat relaxed set of rules for future dominion drama festivals.
Let me join in praise of the centennial commission and the very important work that has been done by that body. We can be genuinely overjoyed at the result of so many of the efforts that have gone into the realization in Canada of this centennial year. I am a bit surprised though about some of the public relations efforts that have reached us by courtesy of the centennial commission.
Let me draw attention to the flip-lidded wastebasket that was provided by the centennial commission community improvement program to at least all members of parliament and I suppose many others in other parts of the country. I am sure that never in the history of publishing has so attractive a container contained so little. Although it may be designed to collect future emissions from this body, if we are to take any warning from what is already inside the prospects for the future are not that much brighter. I know the minister likes to think of herself as being part of the swinging set, but it takes more than the repetition of the word "action" on the outside to convince me that there is much action on the inside.
Let me suggest that in respect of any governmental printing through the Queen's Printer, the archives or any other branch, a serious examination should be made of the policy of dividing pages between the French and English languages. I am all in favour of according equal rights in respect of the
738	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State French language in any publication-do not get me wrong in that regard-but I think it is far better practice to design a booklet so that the English is printed separately on one side and the French on the other side. Although it is possible to take both our great national languages and put them together on a page one does not end up with a masterpiece; one ends up with a puzzle.
I am sure most people have not bothered to read "Action" very thoroughly, partly because of the added task of glancing around the page to decide which half is the one you are supposed to read. There is not much difference between "the A plan" and "le plan A" and it can be a little confusing. There is not much there to read anyway. I thought at one time they might be of some use in schools in French or English language classes, but I am afraid they would not even serve that purpose too well because it is too easy for the student to seek aid from the other half of the column before tackling the problem of translation of the half on which he is working.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would not have minded so much all this flood of material-this is not the only example of material that seems of precious little use which has come to us from the centennial commission-if I had not had a request from a constituent that I thought was perfectly reasonable. This constituent was preparing a history of a church in his community and asked whether he could obtain through the centennial commission offices and auspices anywhere copies of the coat of arms of a size that could be inserted in the publication he was preparing. I referred this request to the Department of the Secretary of State, and after following it through all the byways, alleys and the labyrinth of that department was finally able to get it shunted into the proper slot for consideration, only to learn just this afternoon that nothing of this nature is available either through the Queen's Printer, the archives or any other branch of the federal government. The reason this constituent was so emboldened as to make this request was that some years ago he had made a similar one in respect of the provincial coat of arms. He made it to the British Columbia government on behalf of the Okanagan Historical Society and he says that the result was excellent. We from the west become rather used to British Columbia leading the way, and I would suggest that here is one more area in which that province

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
may have set an example that could well be followed by the federal government.


Mr. I-Ierridge:: Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration?


Mr.   Johnsion@: Not at all. I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West knows many areas in which the provincial government has been a leader in Canada. I am sure the coat of arms of Canada is of particular interest to him and that he would be particularly concerned about it. I am sure also that the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the house this afternoon, would also find this lack in our centennial year a rather amazing one. I hope it is a lack that can be rectified. It is not too late to do so because our centennial year has not yet run its course by any means. I think this is one matter that could be corrected before the year is out.
I know it has been rather out of fashion in late years to include a coat of arms in publications whether they be school textbooks or others. They used to be included in these publications at one time. I can assure hon. members that the coat of arms of Canada, with all its colour, heraldry and intricacy, is a very much "in" thing at the present time and would be studied with considerable interest today, I think, by readers of almost any publication. It is something that should be brought a little closer to the hearts and minds of Canadians.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might tell my hon. friend that while I regret that we do not have copies of the provincial and federal coats of arms to pass out-and I have received a number of requests already this year for them-we now have found a commercial printer who will supply them relatively inexpensively. We are able to give this information to individuals who make requests. Furthermore, the Queen's Printer has had under preparation for the last year a very colourful booklet of the coats of arms and the flowers of the various provinces. It was anticipated that this booklet would be ready by the beginning of this year but publication has been delayed because of the pressures on the Queen's Printer for other centennial publications. However, it should be available fairly shortly. It is in full colour. While it is not loose-leaf in style, I am sure it is a publication that my hon. friend would be happy to send out.


Mr.   Johnsion@: Mr. Chairman, I take some heart from the words of the minister. I find it
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State picked up in haste because it was about broadcasting in the land south of us. He did find that private broadcasting had not been the disaster that he seemed to think it was a few months ago when we were having discussions in the committee and were drafting the report.
Finally I should like to say a word about a problem I have mentioned before in this session and which was mentioned again this afternoon, namely, the prospects of televising the proceedings in this chamber. It seems somehow that members of this house, members of the press and perhaps some members of the public, certainly the people who work in television, have taken heart from the televised proceedings of the security council meeting the other day when, at a time of great international tension and crisis, we were able to watch that body through television. One hon. member, whom I shall not name, in watching the program said "There is democracy for you". Yet I could not see that it had anything to do with democracy. Certainly very few of the nations represented there know a democracy of the kind with which we are familiar in this country, nor have those representatives been elected to the positions they hold. They were appointed to their tasks.
Neither did we really learn much about the democratic process at the United Nations except how closely that program resembled a sporting event as the television personalities did their best to fill in the dull patches by telling us over and over again that we had come to a singularly dramatic moment in the history of the United Nations and of the world. The camera would then flash back and we would see the same huddle. Certainly no televised football game would ever permit any of its players to huddle so long and to so little effect. I am sure that as the public watched the program they too must have had the impression that this was a game being played and commented upon. This is one of the great dangers of televising something that is like a game but is really a matter of life and death.
Another point which is extremely important and which I think should have been noted by every member of the house, every member of the press gallery, every member of the television crews and of the public who watched the program was how absolutely destructive to the decision-making progress the televising of the security council meeting was. If we had hoped at any time that that group

of men would come to a decision which would further the development of peace in the world, our hopes were frustrated the moment the meeting was televised, because how could any one of them have changed his position with the eyes of a good part of the world watching him and many of those eyes ready to brand him as a traitor to his side the moment he made any change?


Mr. Allmand:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Could he tell us whether he considers that the presence of the radio and the press at the security council meeting would have been any different from the presence of television cameras? What would have been the difference between the various media of communication?


Howard Earl Johnston: I am sorry the hon. member is so far behind in his knowledge of the media. I would recommend to him again Canada's prophet, Marshall McLuhan, and his book "Understanding Media" in which the author says over and over again that the media are basically different and that one cannot equate the linear script which we read with what happens through the medium of television, the electronic process. He says that this is an entirely different area and process with an entirely different impact on the viewer. What the press gives us takes at least a day or two to reach us and it takes a certain amount of understanding to follow it. Reading the press is not at all the same thing as watching a group of men, wordless men as they were in this case. I can imagine the overwhelming relief that would have been felt had there appeared a smile of joy on those faces, had they clasped hands and possibly wept and gone back to their places and announced that a peaceful settlement was forthcoming. But what chance was there for this to happen while the meeting was being televised? I would think that the televising of the debates of the United Nations is probably one of the reasons for its relative lack of success and lack of impact and for the fact that the corridors of the UN have become the venues where any sort of agreement that is ever hammered out in that organization is reached.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member another question? What would he say about a radio commentator reporting the proceedings of the United Nations or of parliament? What is the difference between a radio commentator and television?
May 30. 1967


Howard Earl Johnston: I do not think radio comment would improve it much either, but I do not think the impact of a radio comment would be as great or as significant or even as damaging to the democratic process as television would be. We have not been sent here to become stars on television. We have been sent here to legislate, and in the case of the UN its members have been sent there to debate. Yet I am afraid the whole business of debating is seriously hampered, and I might even say perverted, when it is televised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question from this quarter? Perhaps it is a philosophical one. Is there any possibility that by having the eyes of the world on the United Nations security council or by having the eyes of Canada on this place more pressure might be put on them or on us to reach decisions than if we were not aware of people watching us?


Mr.   Johnslon@: I would object to pressure in the decision-making process in most cases. I am afraid pressures are there and they are great at the best of times. I simply cannot agree that pressure of that kind hastens the process of decision-making. I feel it would tend inevitably and invariably to delay or to end altogether the decision-making process.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Sianbury:: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Howard Earl Johnston: I would be quite happy to receive a question from the hon. member for Y ork-Scarborough.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stanbury:: Does the hon. member not agree-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not agree to an extra minute or two?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I thought I heard agreement, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can extend the time if the hon. member wishes to ask for agreement to
do so.


Mr.   Johnslon@: Yes. I thought I had expressed my wish rather clearly before, but I ask now if I may have the few minutes 27053-48

Supply-Secretary of State necessary to receive the question from the hon. member and answer him.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to extend the time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have two brief questions. The first one is, would the hon. member not agree that television increases the involvement of the viewer with the subject matter appearing on television?


Howard Earl Johnston: It probably does in a way, but again it is that kind of involvement we find in the jungle. It does not have any particular progression or logical development to it. It is, in my belief, contrary to the sort of development we have had throughout the long history of parliament where reasoned debate can be carried on at length by both sides. I have been challenged by the statement that television would allow the citizen to know what is happening in this chamber. I contend that the way this chamber would be televised, if it is ever televised, would not increase the knowledge of the average Canadian of the parliamentary process but would only confuse him.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have a few very short remarks to make on the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.
Let me first of all pay a well-deserved homage to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) who, in fulfilling her role, particularly in this centennial year, must discharge very heavy obligations and ever-increasing demands, and I think the Secretary of State deserves, in this centennial year, a very special expression of gratitude and admiration for the magnificent work she is doing and for the very distinguished way in which she fulfills her role.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Now, after these few encomiums, the time for criticism is at hand.
Mr. Chairman, the remarks I should like to make to the minister are very mild criticisms -I should say suggestions. First of all, I think that it would be of great interest if the Broadcasting Act, particularly the sections dealing with political programs could be amended in accordance with the views expressed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which made very specific recommendations to the committee on broadcasting through its then president, Mr. Jean Pouliot.
May 30, 19fi7

Supply-Secretary of State
Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Broadcasting Act prohibits any dramatization of political programs. But it frequently happens at election time that private stations give to that provision a very restrictive interpretation, which explains why the people, at least in a certain sector, are in the habit of tuning into another station when political speeches are heard on the air, and that precisely because the politicians have their hands tied by the formula set in the act, so much so that political programs generate little interest.
Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to call the attention of the house to an incident which took place last year, when the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) known to everyone for his originality, appeared on a television program called "Les Affaires de l'Etat", the French counterpart, I believe, of the program "The Nation's Business". The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had then used a very interesting formula which seemed, at first sight, inconsistent with the provisions of the law, because he actually resorted to dramatic effects during that program. In fact, the hon. member was shown in action, driving around in a convertible, coatless and in his shirt-sleeves, greeting his electors, attending a circus, making short speeches, dictating to his secretary. The program was really quite interesting, but if it had been brought before the court, it would have been considered as contrary to the law, because it was clearly a dramatization.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
On the other hand, if the word dramatization must be scrupulously interpreted, then even the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) should be forbidden to appear on television because when he speaks he is quite dramatic. Still, Mr. Chairman, there should be a certain broadmindedness and understanding of the fact that much more latitude should be given politicians when they appear on television. That stipulation on dramatization should perhaps even be deleted and a more dynamic, more interesting formula substituted which speakers might follow during electoral campaigns with a view to reaching the population.
That is the first thing I should like to suggest to the hon. minister.
My second suggestion, Mr. Chairman, which is certainly a moot question and which may raise indeed, strong objections, is that private stations could be assisted-but I wonder to what extent-through grants or
[Mr. Choquette.l

otherwise, and they would be obliged to put broadcasting time at the disposal of the different political parties, when the latter could air their views, not only at election time, but also outside election campaigns.
The problem that arises is that in several parts of the country, let us say in the province of Quebec, there are stations, such as channel 10 in Montreal and channel 4 in Quebec, both private stations, which are precisely television stations with a higher rating than that of the C.B.C., with the result that when the program "Les Affaires de l'Etat" is on the air, the majority of the population is not watching.
Now, I bring this problem to the minister's attention. Are the conditions similar outside Quebec? I do not know, but I am convinced that all the studies conducted so far show beyond any doubt that Channels 10 and 4 have a much larger audience than the C.B.C. and these other stations which, as private stations, do not allow politicians to broadcast their messages or to air their views outside of election campaigns.
There is another item, perhaps a little more controversial, Mr. Speaker. If, as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) mentioned a moment ago, quoting from the Fowler commission report, the C.B.C. is an essential tool for maintaining Canadian unity, I wonder-however controversial this may be -how much longer the minister will allow these conditions to persist within the French C.B.C. network?
All sorts of statements have been made, that information was slanted, that the C.B.C. was infiltrated with extremists-especially in the French network, and more precisely in Montreal. But when those charges are to be substantiated, the matter becomes much more difficult. I remember a very astute answer which the minister gave in the house, saying that people who work for the C.B.C. are entitled to their own political opinions. That was a very sensible answer.
On the other hand, if these political opinions of C.B.C. employees become a source of confusion, then is it not the duty of the government to interfere, or at least to investigate the matter? Because an article was published in Dimanche Matin, a widely circulated paper, saying that all C.B.C. news services, or better, that the information services in the C.B.C. generally, were controlled by separatists.
May 30. 1967

Here, you have a statement of opinion made by one man, which can be expressed. Now, should there be an inquiry?
Should an inquiry be made? The matter could be brushed aside but, only last Friday, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) himself said that the C.B.C. is full of separatists.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, and this is a personal opinion, I think that if one relates these statements to those of a serious newspaperman and those of a member of the government who observe the situation, then obviously there is no other solution for the government but to undertake a secret or public inquiry in order to ascertain whether the news services of the French speaking C.B.C. network really has an ideological bias. I say this in all sincerity; a public or secret inquiry must be undertaken, because we cannot allow the present situation to continue much longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, my last remark consists not only what the Fowler commission calls the safeguard of Canadian unity but also a closer relationship between the main cultural groups in the country.
Here is what the Fowler commission says, as can be seen on page 37 of its report; this is a statement of great consequence:
We believe the C.B.C. has failed, and is failing today, to discharge adequately its duties to foster understanding between the two main cultural groups in this country. With rare exceptions, it does not produce programs that would assist English-speaking Canadians to understand the attitudes and aspirations of French Canada. Equally the C.B.C. has failed to convey to French Canadians the doubts, uncertainties, ignorance, and good will of English Canadians concerning the "French Fact".
Mr. Chairman, that was said in 1965 since the report was submitted in that year. That statement deserves a serious and thorough consideration. Is there something more powerful than television? And what is most unfortunate, when the C.B.C. had what is known as a "captive audience", that is an audience that could listen to nothing else than the C.B.C., it did not avail itself of the most wonderful opportunity to get our English-speaking fellow citizens better acquainted with the French culture and avoid, today, all those useless disputes, as well as the appearance of those extremists who frighten us sometimes.
In French Canada, the younger generation may have ideas likely to cause concern. We sometimes wonder who can inspire these ideas 27053-481

Supply-Secretary of State fraught with seeds of revolution? Why has Canada no longer any meaning for them? I am speaking of a certain group, a certain number of the younger generation. Canada is an English-speaking country. That is right. Quebec is a French territory. So, Canada does not exist any longer. It is no longer needed. It is unfortunate that some young people should think along these lines, Mr. Chairman.
It is sufficient to go back to the last election campaign in Quebec to realize that this is true. What were the slogans of the two parties? The Liberal party's slogan was: A Stronger Quebec! L'Union nationale had the slogan: Quebec first! There is no longer any question of a Canadian ideal today, Mr. Chairman, and I say this for the benefit of my Conservative friends. I see that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) is here.
Quebec first! Such was the slogan of the present Quebec premier, and when Mr. Johnson was elected, who rejoiced at his election? The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). How can he rejoice at the victory of a man whose political philosophy is basically incompatible with the political philosophy of the Conservative party? It is the same Mr. Johnson who said-on this point, I cannot disagree with him because his ideas are somewhat the same as mine-when Mr. Lapointe was appointed lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, he said: "I hope he will be the last one".
a (5:30 p.m.)
So, he is antimonarchist and the member for Kamloops rejoices at the election of an antimonarchist premier. How can anyone understand that, Mr. Chairman? Such is the series of contradictions to be found among the Conservatives.
On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is against certain bills because, according to him, they are gnawing at the prerogatives of the crown. On the other hand, the member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) introduced a bill which is a visible indication that the man intends to bring down the prerogatives of the crown. There are all sorts of contradictions within the Conservative party.
To get back to my subject, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the Liberal party has always promoted Canadian unity, and the best way to bring about Canadian unity is not to thwart anyone or anyone's aspirations.
744	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State
The only way to give French-speaking Canadians the feeling that Canada belongs to them as much as to other Canadians, and that they are at home in Vancouver is to allow French culture to flourish throughout the country. And what better way is there to bring French culture to all parts of the country than by means of television programs, Mr. Chairman?
And the younger generation is the hope of Canada. The English-speaking young people -I had the opportunity of meeting some of them in Ontario and elsewhere-are interested in the French fact to a really unusual degree. In fact, they show a very keen interest in the French fact. They learn a little French in school, but they do not have the opportunity to chat in this language and to use the knowledge they acquire in school.
They learn French rather as we learn Latin in our colleges, that is to say after five years, we are not even able to ask for a butter scotch sundae in Latin.
The same applies to our English-speaking fellow-countrymen, Mr. Chairman. They learn French, but not in a practical way, because they do not have the opportunity to speak.
Now, if the C.B.C. had some French programs throughout the country, young children coming back from school who have acquired some rudiments of French would hasten to open their television set to try to learn more.
This project would not be costly, Mr. Chairman. It would not be necessary to build a French system throughout the country but only to set up in large English-speaking areas of Canada what is commonly known as repeaters. That would not be costly; as a matter of fact, it would cost less to build some in the large centres across the country in order to bring programs to the vast majority of English-speaking audiences, than what the B & B commission will cost. In addition it would be much more efficient to promote bilingualism in Canada and to enable our English-speaking friends, when they hear French, to consider this language as something else than what we consider Latin.
When we hear priests speak Latin, it is like folklore to us. And yet, we learned Latin four or five years. We have not been taught to use it conversationally. It is the same thing for English-speaking students. They are taught French as a sort of folklore, as a language they do not need +o remember.
[Mr. Choquette.l
DEBATES	May 30. 1967
However, we still have to know that this exists and it is most unfortunate.
Mr. Chairman, the younger generation is objective and broad-minded and the old fanatisms are about to collapse. When the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who is a true Conservative, spoke earlier, I asked him this: Would you favour the installation of "repeaters" across the country? He replied that he would and I was happy to hear him say so. But had the same question been directed to the Leader of the Opposition, he would have answered in the negative. If the same question were asked to all the front-benchers of the Conservative party, they would answer: "No."
Mr. Chairman, this proves that the younger generation is progressing, that it is the hope of Canada. The best way we can make it possible for that younger generation, which represents more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population, to live better together, is to increase our knowledge of the two great cultures which make Canada a richer country of which we are so proud.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I join with those throwing bouquets at the Secretary of State. I am glad I could throw mine before she left the chamber.
I wish to commend the statements she made about the centennial commissioner. I am proud of what has been and is being done and I second the remarks of the hon. member who referred to the centennial commissioner, Mr. Fisher. I hope the newspaper reports of his being denigrated or of his role being diminished are false. His leadership in the field has been magnificent. He has never been afraid to let his Canadianism show. His verve, vigour and healthy nationalism have inspired the centennial commission and have made its achievements worth while. We are proud that in the commission we have a group of people, headed by Mr. Fisher, who have done so much at a crucial time in our history.
I was delighted to hear the minister say that she will consider what future use is to be made of the centennial train and caravans. After 1967 is over I hope we will still be enthusiastic about them. I hope that in future years we shall continue honouring our past. Most of what has taken place up to now is altogether commendable, though of some developments I am not entirely proud. I was not enthusiastic about the extravaganza, "Sound And Light", and was distressed by
May 30, 1967

increasing difficulty in finding appropriate occasions for the proper and meaningful use of the royal union flag or the Union Jack.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am sure many of my learned colleagues on this side of the house and on other sides of the house, if this house has more than two sides, will want to raise many issues with the Secretary of State. I envy her the opportunity she has to give inspiration to Canadians all over the country. I believe that people are right in suggesting that we are going to come out of our centennial year a better country, a wiser country. We are perhaps going to be a little less reluctant to become a bit excited about our own achievements. We have produced in this part of the world a pretty fine political entity. We have men and women in our past of whom we can be proud. We have always pooh-poohed nationalism; we have always been a bit hesitant to get excited about our own accomplishments. I think that the Fishers of this country, and the minister herself when she gets going-she has been showing us lately-will help diminish the self-effacing apologetic attitude which we as Canadians have had for far too long.
I do not think we will react the other way and become so over-confident as to assume our problems have vanished because Expo has been a success and because the centennial caravans and centennial train have been running smoothly. But I believe this is a fine exercise and, generally speaking, I think the minister has done a good job in giving leadership. She has a tremendous department. It is the omnibus department of government. It is a department over which not too much political fire is raised except in connection with the C.B.C. I do not see much pressure exerted to get new books for the library. It is not a gut issue of politics. But if the spirit of the country is all-important it is in this department that the opportunities are greatest.
I end as I began by wishing the minister well in very effort she makes to extend the educational and spiritual life of this country, and I use the word "spiritual" advisedly. She has great opportunities and I will not add to her difficulty by making further remarks at this time.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member for York-Humber.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for recognizing me although I had not risen. I have a question or two which I wish to ask the Secretary of State at this time. In the
Supply-Secretary of State estimates for her department there is a line on page 469 of the blue book which reads, "Statues and portraits of prime ministers, $270,000." The amount provided last year was $100,000. I would like to ask the minister what fate overtook the statues of Bennett and Meighen that were delivered to Ottawa some years ago. The only report the public got was that they were quite unacceptable to the government of the day, and so they disappeared. Were those statues ever paid for or are they being remodelled?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: How do you remodel a statue?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: What happened to the sculptor who produced them? Was he compensated?
Inasmuch as citizenship now comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State I wish to remind her that at one time Jack Kent Cooke was associated with Lord Thomson of Fleet in various Canadian enterprises. At that time the two of them were well known together in Canadian business circles. Jack Kent Cooke has now departed Canada voluntarily and has engineered American citizenship for himself almost overnight in the same way that we granted Canadian citizenship to Time and Reader's Digest.
But Lord Thomson of Fleet, who loves Canada like he loves no other land because he was born here and his children were born here, has lost his Canadian citizenship through taking citizenship in the United Kingdom and the colonies. Since Jack Kent Cooke was able to establish United States citizenship overnight, as stated in the American press, I would like to ask the minister whether it would be possible to restore Canadian citizenship to Lord Thomson of Fleet by a private member's bill and could it be done before July 1 the centennial of the confederation of Canada?
I think this is the least that the Canadian parliament and the Canadian public can do to show appreciation for Roy Thomson, now known as Lord Thomson of Fleet, a man who has distinguished himself throughout the world and brought credit to his homeland and his birthplace.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer the last question first, I understand Mr. Cooke obtained United States citizenship through a private act of congress, which would be an expensive procedure, I should think, to say the very least, and is a relatively rare one.
May 30. 19G7

Supply-Secretary of State
To my knowledge Canadian citizenship has never been conferred by a private act of the two houses of parliament although the suggestion has been made, particularly by some members of the upper house, that this might happen in what appear to be hard cases where the minister did not have any discretion. I would not wish to encourage this. As hon. members know, I am not in a position to give legal advice to the committee, but as a general principle I think it is pretty well known that a specific act will override a general act, and if that were the will of the two chambers I suppose it could be done. I am not suggesting to my hon. friend that I am encouraging it but I think that as a matter of fact it could be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be a long way down the list anyway.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hardly imagine it could be done by July 1. With regard to the other question concerning the particular item that appears on page 469 of the blue book, "statues and portraits of prime ministers", hon. members will be aware that last year I asked a select committee of knowledgeable people to commission sculptors to begin to fill in the gaps, particularly of the more notable of Canada's prime ministers, and to provide representational statues which might be located on capital hill, in the Ottawa-Hull area, and on these premises.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Parliament hill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We hardly wish to have a forest of statues of prime ministers at the end of 200 years, and there being so much beautiful acreage in the public domain in the area it was thought some of these statues might be placed outside the immediate area of parliament.
Recommendations were made and accepted that four prime ministers of this century should be chosen, Meighen, Bennett, King and St. Laurent. The select committee chose four sculptors from various parts of Canada who it was felt would be in sympathy with the individual subjects, and they were asked to present maquettes for consideration. Some months went by and three maquettes were delivered and were approved as to artistic merit by the select committee.
The ministry in general did not view them and to my knowledge has never seen them, but when I viewed them I inquired whether any of the survivors of the three deceased

prime ministers or any members of the families of any of them had viewed them, and I was told that in at least one case friends and relatives had seen it. I want to say nothing about the artistic merit but one of the statues particularly commended itself to me. One of the two others I rejected. The other one I did not like at all personally and it was rejected, but that is neither here nor there.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The important thing is that if you are going to put up a statue of a statesman it should give succeeding generations an idea of how the statesman looked and how he or she dressed, and the physical attitude should be as recognizable as a photograph. During the centuries there have been many representations of art which have met the test of time and I dare say much of what is produced today, either painting or sculpture, will also meet the test of time. These sculptures are not primarily intended as works of art but as representations to future generations of the statesmen of the past.
Accordingly, and as luck would have it, I rejected the statues of Messrs. Meighen and Bennett. The statues of Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent may not be everybody's cup of tea but they are instantly recognizable. I am sure all members share my embarrassment in that out of the four the two acceptable on that basis happened to be of members of my own party, particularly since it was my hope that at least these four would be put up this year.
I might add that I was not aware there were any photographs of these maquettes, and I was told they were not easy to move. For that reason they were not even produced for cabinet inspection. I have only seen the photograph of the maquette of the St. Laurent statue. I have not seen the maquette itself.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.
May 30. 1967



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Labour Relations-Confederation of National Trade Unions; the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), northern Ontario-possible classification as designated area.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-104, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few moments in introducing the motion for second reading of this bill which I hope will be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.
The house will recall that Bill C-239, which was indentical in terms to Bill C-104, was given second reading in this house on February 16, 1967 and referred to the standing committee on transport and communications. That committee dealt with it during only one meeting in the immediately preceding session. Part of the committee meeting on March 14 was devoted to consideration of this bill, and about all that time permitted was a resume of the bill and the presentation of supporting facts by the president of the Bell Telephone Company.
On February 16 during second reading I was privileged to take some time to deal with the bill and I do not propose to go over the same ground today. Just as an aside, it is my hope that the government or the house, if required, will consider an order incorporating the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee of last session as part of the committee's proceedings in order that it will not be necessary for the committee or the president of the company to go over that ground which has so recently been explored.
It is my hope that this bill will be given second reading and referred to the standing committee today. I do not intend to say anything more but I will listen with interest to any remarks of other hon. members who may wish to exercise their privilege and speak on the motion. At the expiration of this hour I
Private Bills
hope this bill will be referred to the committee so it can receive the thorough study I am sure the committee will make.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we agree with the proposal put forward by the sponsor that the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the meeting of the committee last session be made part of the order of reference to the committee, if that is the proper wording, in order that the evidence which was heard will be automatically before that committee. This will obviate the necessity of covering that ground again and having the officials of the company duplicate their activities and efforts. We are the masters of our own rules and procedures, so I am sure we can do this if someone will work out the technique or mechanics of such an order. I am sure no one would object to that procedure.
When this matter was before the house on the last occasion we expressed some concern about the powers sought by the Bell Telephone Company and the necessity of conducting a very thorough examination into the bill and the reason the Bell Telephone Company wants the powers it seeks. If I may be permitted, I should like to say something about the operations of the committee to which this bill will undoubtedly be referred. The nature of the bill is such that we should attach to the committee several individuals who are expert in the field of communications and finance in order that they may advise members of the committee. In this way committee members would be in a better position to understand and fully appreciate the powers which the company seeks.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
While this is a private bill and thus, under the rules of the house, relates only to a group of private individuals, I think the operations of the Bell Telephone Company should be considered as a public matter and the law relating to the company should be considered as public law. The Bell Telephone Company is a massive organization. It is seeking to increase its capitalization to $1J billion, which far surpasses the budgetary expenditures of many provinces today. It is involved in the highly developed area of communications and is in the forefront of new developments in telecommunications and electronics. Much of the material and machinery used by Bell Telephone becomes obsolete almost before it is put into use. Virtually every household has a telephone and it is almost a
7S0

May 30, 1967
Private Bills
prime necessity of life for one person to communicate with another. In the whole field of telecommunications, satellites, television and the like there is a state of revolution, and communications have a tremendous impact upon the average citizen.
In view of all these facts it seems to me we would be far better advised to consider enacting legislation relating to Bell Telephone Company as public rather than private law involving only a few individuals as distinct from the general public. The general public is greatly affected by what the Bell Telephone Company does.
Because of the highly technical nature of the company's operations and the extreme complexity of its financial structure, which I do not presume to grasp in even the smallest degree, I also think that the committee which considers this bill should have attached to it a staff of people who are knowledgeable in these fields and can advise its members on just what they should do with this bill. I believe these are prime reasons why the committee should have a knowledgeable staff to advise it. If the government would take cognizance of the desire to make our committees function more effectively than they have in the past, it would take the initiative in giving to the committee the authority to employ staff to undertake the studies necessary in connection with a bill as complex as this one and a company that has such a tremendous influence and effect upon the lives of so many people in this nation. If this is not procedurally possible, or the government does not avail itself of the procedures available at the moment to make these necessary provisions, I hope the members of the committee will recognize the necessity of doing so and will accordingly make the appropriate recommendations or take the appropriate action to enable personnel to give advice to the committee on all the ramifications of Bell Telephone's operations and the bill now before us.
In the last session this bill originated in and proceeded through the Senate. It reached the House of Commons and was given first reading. There was one business meeting of the committee to consider the bill and then the session ended. This time the bill is starting off in the House of Commons. This indicates on the part of Bell Telephone Company-they are very knowledgeable people and pretty smart when it comes to doing things and recognizing authority and power -a recognition that the place to start is the House of Commons because this is where the authority and the power are, and the Senate

comes hindmost in the consideration of this and a number of other private bills that are now before us. I do not know whether this indicates a trend for the future.
As I understand it the fees charged for the introduction of private bills in the Senate are less than those in the House of Commons. I understand that the historical reason for this is that it was thought that the Senate, having relatively little to do and being of relatively little value in the process of enacting law, should be given some sort of function even though a cursory one and accordingly the fees were made less in the Senate than in the House of Commons in the hope of inducing sponsors of private bills to start off in the Senate and let the Senate do the investigative work and study. The House of Commons was ofttimes considered, in respect of private bills, to be a rubberstamp for what took place in the Senate. Perhaps Bell Telephone has recognized that a change is taking place and they should proceed first in the house.
There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house. It relates to the fees paid by Bell Telephone. During the last session they paid a certain amount of money-I do not know how much-as fees to the Senate for the introduction of the bill in that chamber. There was a commitment at the end of last session that in respect of any private bills that were not concluded either by being passed or defeated, those that were merely held up in the works-I refer to any private bills that were still on the order paper -which commitment was arrived at privately by representatives of the parties and indirectly the sponsors of the private bills, the companies petitioning for bills should, if they reintroduced them, not have to pay the fees a second time. I understand that the Bell Telephone Company has paid and perhaps has been required to pay by the rules of the house, which could not be waived until the occasion arose, for the reintroduction of this bill the amount of $150,000 as fees in respect of their private bill. They should not have had to pay this fee.
I hope that one of the first items of business of the committee, after it deals with the matter of staff and personnel attached to it because I think that is of paramount importance, should be to take action in making a recommendation to the house that the fee of $150,000 which Bell Telephone has paid a second time of necessity and through no fault of its own should be returned to the company.
May 30, 1967


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I may have
misunderstood my hon. friend, and if so I apologize, but may I ask whether the hon. gentleman said that the bill was introduced in the Senate last session?


Frank Howard: I may have said that. I was talking in general terms when I said that these bills by tradition emanate from the Senate. Some of the bills which appear on the order paper did emanate from the Senate. This bill was introduced in the house last session. I did not mean to imply that it emanated from the Senate.


Russell Clayton Honey: I just wanted it made clear, Mr. Speaker, that last session also the bill originated in the House of Commons.


Frank Howard: Then even more credit is due Bell Telephone in recognizing where the power in parliament exists, that it is in the House of Commons and not the Senate. After the House of Commons deals with the Bell Telephone bill we will toss it over to the Senate to do with as they wish. I suppose that as usual they will give it a rather scant look and agree with whatever Bell Telephone wants to do, which of course might not always be in the public interest.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Perhaps the answer I gave to the hon. gentleman who is the sponsor of the bill is worth following up. It underlines the necessity of dealing with bills of this nature, which have such a great bearing and effect upon the general public, as public law because it is only in the House of Commons that we receive a reflection of the public concern about certain matters owing to the fact that we have to go back home occasionally to get acquainted with the feelings of our constituents and at election time to attempt to be re-elected. This, of course, gives hon. members a much better opportunity to express the feelings of the general public because we are, or at least I hope we all are, more closely in touch with the public, its needs and aspirations, than are members of the other place which in many cases is aloof from public opinion and public concern.
So the fact that the Bell Telephone Company has come here, both initially and the second time, underlines the necessity of paying more attention to these matters in the house and, I hope, of taking steps to preserve the public interest rather than to attempt to meet the requests of private citizens in the Bell Telephone Company. In any event I be-
Private Bills
lieve that the $150,000 which I understand the Bell Telephone Company has paid again, should be returned because it was through no fault of theirs that they had to come back here this session.
The powers that Bell Telephone seeks to obtain are extremely broad. It almost wants the right to control the moon and a variety of other planets in outer space. It almost wants the power to print money, distribute credit, and I do not know what else. These powers and authorities which are sought by Bell Telephone are the subject of some concern on our part because in effect when parliament deals with a company as massive as Bell Telephone it gives it the right to promulgate private law by giving it the broad powers which it seeks. This is a matter on which our attention should be centred. Others in our party who have concerned themselves about the structure of the Bell Telephone Company will go into this subject in greater detail.
In closing may I say that I think this bill will be given second reading today. Those of us who are interested in private bills and have expressed concern about the effect which the enactment of such bills will have upon the public have in the past been responsible for delaying the passage of certain private bills. The reason for our concern at times has been the fact that either we suspected or discovered something unwholesome about some private bills. However, as was the case last session, we would like to see the committee given the opportunity to investigate and study this bill with respect to the Bell Telephone Company. At the moment there is every hope that the bill will be given second reading today and will go to the committee for the thorough and complete study which it obviously needs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-112, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the sponsor of the bill would give us as careful and assiduous an explanation of the purposes of the bill as he usually does.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I will be very glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. This bill seeks the incorporation of a company under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to

May 30, 1967
Private Bills
carry on business in all classes of insurance other than life insurance. A similar bill was first introduced in the last session of the twenty sixth parliament and was passed by the Senate on June 30, 1965, but received only first reading in the House of Commons before that parliament ended. In the first session of the twenty seventh parliament a similar bill was passed by the Senate on February 24, 1966 and had advanced to the committee stage in this house prior to third reading before prorogation.
The proposed company would be a subsidiary of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company is a corporation carrying on a substantial general insurance business in the United States of America with its head office at Hartford, Connecticut. Aetna Casualty, with its subsidiary, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, writes business in all classes of insurance for which application is being made in the bill to incorporate the Canadian company.
The 1965 premium income of Aetna Casualty, including Standard Fire, increased 17 per cent to $665 million.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company was organized in 1907 and operated as a partially owned subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance Company until late in 1964. At that time a reorganization was effected under which all the shares were transferred to and are now held by a trustee for the shareholders of Aetna Life Insurance Company.
Aetna Life Insurance Company was incorporated and commenced business in 1853. The Aetna Life and Casualty organization now carries on business throughout the United States of America and is one of the largest multiple line insurers in the United States.
Aetna Life Insurance Company commenced doing business in Canada over 100 years ago. In 1960, Aetna Life Insurance Company made an offer to the shareholders of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company of Toronto for the purchase of approximately 70 per cent of the outstanding shares of Excelsior.
Aetna Life Insurance Company presently holds 70.91 per cent of the outstanding shares of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. Substantially all new business in the life insurance field in Canada is undertaken by the Excelsior Life Insurance Company rather than by Aetna. The Excelsior Life Insurance Company operates with almost complete autonomy, and its operating management is entirely Canadian.

The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford has conducted business in Canada for some years and has held a certificate of registry under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act for the past 48 years. A substantial part of the business conducted by the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has been related to business conducted by the company with United States corporations having subsidiaries operating in Canada. A certain amount of direct business has also been carried out, especially in connection with major risks, an example of which is the liability insurance for Expo 1967. The company has not maintained any offices, other than for the servicing of claims, in Canada but has carried on its Canadian business through its chief agent, Dale and Company of Montreal.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has reviewed its operations in Canada and has concluded that it would now be desirable that its direct Canadian business should be carried on by a company incorporated in Canada. It is believed that this step would enable the Canadian operations of the company to be developed more effectively and with greater Canadian participation in the conduct of the business.
In anticipation of expanding its operations in Canada, either through a Canadian company or through the United States company, Aetna Casualty and Surety will establish an office in Toronto. It has already selected a Canadian to be general manager of its operations in this office. Another Canadian has been selected to be in charge of the fidelity and surety operations.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The establishment of a Canadian company would provide additional insurance capacity for the Canadian market. This would be true with respect to all classes of business which the company plans to write, but is particularly important in the surety bond field because of the vast construction projects which are planned for Canada in the future.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety' Company of Hartford now has claim offices located in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec city, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver with approximately 40 employees located in Toronto and another 50 spread throughout its other claim offices in Canada. All but four of the present employees are Canadians, and all present employees would become employees of the Canadian company. Normal growth would indicate that by the end of five years employees would number 300, of which at
May 30, 1967

least 95 per cent would be Canadians. The Canadian company would be under the direction of the before mentioned Canadian general manager, who would have charge of the company's operations throughout Canada. Initially, underwriting, sales, engineering and accounting would be centralized in the head office in Toronto, but as need becomes evident these facilities would be placed in other important cities in Canada. Of course the experience and services of the Hartford company will be available for the assistance of the Canadian company.
As is customary for any prudent insurance company, it will adopt a re-insurance program designed to protect its surplus from catastrophic loss.
A financing plan has been developed to provide the capital and surplus necessary without impairing the balance of trade position of either Canada or the United States.
It is the intention of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, as the parent company, to leave any underwriting profits in the Canadian company to strengthen its financial structure.
A primary objective for the company, already demonstrated in the selection of the general manager and the manager of the bond department, will be to employ Canadians in the management of the operation to the extent that they are available. Of course all of the clerical personnel will be Canadians.
The establishment of this Canadian company will create for Canada additional employment, additional capital funds and, as previously mentioned, additional capacity for the insurance market. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has stated that it looks upon the establishment of the company as an additional thrust for the already demonstrated expanding Canadian economy, and as a permanent and growing part of this economy.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: As the
sponsor of the bill has already stated, this bill does have a rather familiar flavour because we had a look at one which was essentially the same during the previous session. It immediately comes to my mind that one could, in effect, label this as the A to Z bill, but since the sponsor is a firm from the United States perhaps one should say the A to Zee bill. In the clause which sets out the classes of insurance which it is proposed this company will handle, it so happens that every letter of the alphabet is covered. As the sponsor says, apparently everything is in here that one
Private Bills
could imagine except the carrying of life insurance.
I should say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I listened carefully to the very straightforward outline of the purposes of the bill given by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron). In my opinion the speech he has just delivered constitutes a convincing argument as to why this bill should not receive passage in the house. He has been quite straightforward in stating the company will be a subsidiary of the United States company, and that while they have been operating in Canada in the past directly, the passage of this bill would enable the company to expand their operations in this country.
I believe this statement raises at once a rather fundamental matter of economic policy so far as the country is concerned. I must say that in the insurance business, and in the financial field generally, it is my view this parliament should accept the view that foreign enterprise in this field should not be encouraged to expand at this juncture in our history. The hon. member for High Park, who is sponsoring the bill, obviously holds a somewhat different point of view on this question. In my view the presentation of the bill does open up, some very broad considerations concerning the economic future of this country.
I think it would have been quite appropriate if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) had been in the chamber during this hour to give us the benefit of his views on the proposals in the bill. I am sure that with his background and experience as a former minister of finance in this country, and with the knowledge we have of some of the views he has expressed in this chamber and in other places in Canada, he would be much more competent to go into the ramifications of this particular bill than I feel I am.
Nevertheless, while I certainly do not agree with all the proposals that have been made by the President of the Privy Council with respect to controlling the increasing subservience of our economy to that of another country, I do agree with what I feel should be his basic objective, and that is to adopt measures to guarantee the economic independence of our country. The proposal contained in this bill moves in exactly the opposite direction, and it does so in a field which has been recognized in our banking legislation as being one about which not only the President of the Privy Council and members of the New Democratic party are concerned, but even the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has

May 30, 1967
Private Bills
indicated increasing encroachment and control in the financial field as something which should be of concern to us all.
I suggested in previous discussions on insurance bills that in my view insurance companies are not wealth-producing institutions. When we discuss the principles involved, allowing foreign financial institutions such as insurance companies to extend their operations in Canada, what we are in fact doing is enabling an institution to draw out from Canada wealth which is being created by all of us.
I think there is a valid distinction between the extension of an operation of this kind in our economy, and an investment which may be made in the resource extraction industry. I think it should be clear that in expressing this point of view I am not in any way casting reflections upon the particular company which, as the sponsor says, is an old established firm in the United States. I am not casting any reflections, either upon the way they have operated their business, or upon their financial soundness. Nevertheless this measure does involve a real question of policy that I feel puts us in the position of having to discuss the question from the broader point of view than the incorporation of this particular company.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker-and statistics bear this out-that there has recently been a very deliberate attempt over a period of years on the part of United States firms to move into and gain increasing control of the insurance business in Canada. The sponsor of the bill mentioned that there had been a purchase of a former Canadian company, and this is just one example that has been repeated many times in recent years of a process that has been going on, to the point where, in this field as in so many others, we as Canadians, either in this parliament or outside of it, are not going to have any real say in the conduct of the affairs and economic life of Canada.
I am not at all certain that one should be concerned whether a company of this nature is going to undertake a single class of insurance business, or multiple classes of insurance business as proposed in the bill. I suppose that if this company is going to operate in that field, it should be able to write insurance covering all kinds of possible damage or hazards to property. Nevertheless the fact remains that there are now in operation many businesses which provide Canadians with the opportunity of acquiring the insurance that they may desire to place upon their property

in order to protect themselves against the financial loss that may occur as a result of fire, accident, falling aircraft,, earthquakes, explosions, or any one of the other classes mentioned in the bill.
One of the classes that is not mentioned in the bill, one which does cover damage from earthquakes, and a class which, if it had been included and the company were prepared to confine its operations to this field, might have led me to support it, is tidal wave insurance. I mention it because part of my constituency was damaged a few years ago by a tidal wave which had been caused by an earthquake in Alaska. Quite considerable damage was done at that time to property.
As a result of this occurrence I discovered that apparently tidal wave insurance is not available to the ordinary property owner. If the sponsor of the bill could persuade this company to withdraw these other classes of insurance and to confine itself to providing tidal wave insurance, perhaps I might be convinced to take a different position on the bill. Because this is an example of the kind of protection which apparently is not available, and there might be some virtue in a company entering this particular field of insurance. Although these other hazards are covered, apparently this particular one is not.


Frank Howard: They would run out of letters in the alphabet.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My colleague suggests that there are perhaps not enough letters in the alphabet. Those of us who have been here for some time know that you cannot go from (aa) and (bb) down to (xx) when enumerating paragraphs in the interpretation clause of a particular bill, though I do not suggest seriously that this is a reason for this or any other company not offering this particular class of insurance.
At times, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by the willingness with which Canadians enter arrangements to become directors and operators of wholly owned subsidiaries of firms outside Canada. I think that the particular elements in our society that move into and operate in the field of business management and the framing of business policies should, by right, be among those who are most concerned about preserving the economic viability of the Canadian economy as something which belongs to Canadians. I suppose it is part of the philosophy that is all too prevalent, that we are too willing to make a fast buck at any price.
May 30, 1967

I think this attitude and outlook enters into the approach that people in the business community are inclined to take, sometimes subconsciously, without really realizing the implications. I suppose one could argue that we are moving into the field of a type of international corporate structure; but in our particular situation this is a pretty one-sided operation because we lie next to a nation as large and wealthy as the United States. In the process is seems to me we are likely to be so completely submerged that any meaning in reality to Canadian life will go down the drain. This is what will happen if we in this parliament do not show our concern about the trends which are becoming increasingly evident all the time.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that there is much more I can add to my argument. I am not too hopeful that I can convince the sponsor of this bill of the error of his ways. I know he has put forward his proposal in good faith, and I presume with an honest conviction that it would be in the interest of Canada and would be expedient to adopt this bill. I simply say to him in closing that he and I apparently have a very honest difference of opinion as to what in this sort of situation is in the real interest of the economy and the citizens of this country.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have always had a great appreciation of the abilities of my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), but after listening to him I think the word appreciation is rather pale and insipid. He has just given me cause to admire his perceptiveness and his ability to follow the highly detailed, technical and complex remarks made by the bill's sponsor. My colleague grasped the significance of the document introduced in the introductory remarks by the sponsor of the bill. When my colleague referred to that document and said that he appreciated the straightforward manner in which the bill's sponsor had outlined its purposes, I was amazed. I had not thought it possible to follow the labyrinthian course that the bill's sponsor outlined when he explained the intricacies, complexities and involvements of this company with other companies.
* (6:50 p.m.)
As the bill's sponsor spoke I was reminded of the mazes we tried to solve in the Saturday newspapers of long ago, when we were children. One had either to find the starting point to solve the maze, or begin again. The ability of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to
Private Bills
find a solution to the maze presented by the sponsor of the bill surprised me. As for myself, I must read Hansard and study it in detail to appreciate the full implications of this bill, the corporate structure of the company, and to try to assess its affect on the public of this country.
It is clear that the company spoken of in the bill is not Canadian owned but is a subsidiary of a United States company, as are many insurance companies and the like in Canada. Some years ago when Mr. Barrette was premier of Quebec and Mr. Jean Lesage was running the campaign of the Liberal party, which was then in opposition, the Liberal party's clarion call was the slogan "maitre chez nous"-master in our own house. This was more than a declaration; it was a symbol of the feeling of the Liberal party in Quebec, that the people of Quebec ought to be masters in their own house. That slogan is one which the national Liberal party could also use. Canada ought to be master of its economic house. If we are not our own master, if we are not vitally concerned in owning our own house in the economic sense and stopping the drift to a greater foreign control of our industry and commerce, we shall not long be our own political masters. He who controls his purse controls his destiny.
No other nation in the world has such a high proportion of its industries and commercial establishments controlled and owned by foreigners as has this nation. I have heard varying figures mentioned but I believe that somewhere around two thirds to three quarters of our total economy is under foreign control, under the dictation of people who are not Canadians and do not live in the country. The Aetna Casualty Company, or whatever the name of the parent company at Hartford, Connecticut, is another example of a foreign company owning part of Canadian commerce.
My colleague for Comox-Alberni spoke of the philosophy of the President of the Privy Council when he was a private member, a candidate, chairman of a royal commission, a budding author, minister of finance, again a private member, minister without portfolio and now as President of the Privy Council. I shall not repeat what was said. The views of the President of the Privy Council are well known. Unfortunately the Liberal party does not espouse the slogan "maitre chez nous" -except for the Prime Minister.
Some time ago on a nation-wide television broadcast the Prime Minister enunciated his
756	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State philosophy and the philosophy of his government. He said Canada ought to regain and own an increasing proportion of its industry. We thought he meant what he said. Considering the new legislation which demands that new life insurance companies be Canadian owned in majority, and the statement of the Prime Minister, we took his forthright statement to mean that the principle enunciated in the life insurance legislation would apply to other insurance companies.


An hon. Member:: Seven o'clock.


Frank Howard: Some one has called it seven o'clock. May I say, before closing, that we intend to talk this specific bill out because the company in it does not meet the philosophy enunciated by the Prime Minister, or the statute law of this nation as it relates to life insurance companies.
May I call it seven o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It has been brought to my attention that the house considered item 1 under private bills and we then went to item No. 3. Is it understood that order No. 2 under private bills is allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Wahn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,648,900.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The sitting resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The house in committee of tupply on the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, item No. 1, departmental administration.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When six o'clock was called I was explaining to the hon. member for York-Humber something with respect to the

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
item in my departmental estimates concerning the expenditure for prime ministers statues. I hope I shall be able to pick up in a coherent way the thread of what I was saying.
It was after I had rejected the two pieces of sculpture representing the former prime ministers Meighen and Bennett that some publicity was given to the matter. I am grateful for the fact that the C.B.C. did show photographs of the two sculptures-photographs which I did not know existed. In fact, since the photographs were published I have received nothing but commendation on my decision, not, I hasten to say, because there was anything lacking in the aesthetic merit of the works, or the quality of the artistry, but only on account of the manner of representation.
Some notable modern sculptors, of whom I suppose Mr. Gerald Gladstone is the greatest example in Canada, indicated that in their view a feeling for the character and personality of the individual represented might be more appropriate. Indeed, the two sculptors whose work we rejected both, undeniably, gave a "feeling" of their subjects. The Meighen sculpture was a wire sculpture, attenuated, and highly pleasing aesthetically, to me; it conveyed what many people still retain as an impression of Mr. Meighen. However, some members of his family and friends of the late prime minister felt it might be considered to be a caricature of him, and I agreed it would not be acceptable generally to visitors to the Ottawa area.
The sculpture of the late Mr. Bennett was a massive thing of eloquently undefined nature, and it undoubtedly carried much of the feeling of Mr. Bennett, at least to me, to the extent I recall him. But this, too, was one which might well have been considered by most laymen to be a caricature, and I think hon. members will appreciate, particularly since this concerned two Progressive Conservative prime ministers, that I was sensitive to this possibility.
After these sculptures had been rejected, I am informed that negotiations were conducted with the officials of the gallery and the special expert committee, and as far as I am aware the two sculptors have had their accounts with the government settled. I am not sure what happened to the maquettes. I am informed the gallery invited the sculptors to leave both with them. I have asked that the expert committee be reconstituted and be requested to select two more artists who will be expected to produce more representational figures. This time, so that there may be no
May 30, 1967

controversy about their artistic merit, I have suggested I will see the maquettes when they are ready, and myself decide in the first instance whether or not they appear to be sufficiently representational. Only if they pass that test would they then be considered on their artistic merits. As far as I am concerned this is acceptable to the expert committee, which is at least in the process of selecting two more sculptors. The latest information I can obtain is that at least a sculpture of Mackenzie King may be ready during 1967. Sites were selected on the grounds of the parliament buildings, on the grounds of the Supreme Court building, and I believe one was to go on Nepean Point. However, I cannot tell the committee which ones were to go where, but subsequently I will be able to give a better report.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
For the reasons I have explained, I do not know what the individual statues were to cost.
The portraits referred to are those of two leading personages, one the Prime Minister and the other the former prime minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, who have not heretofore been painted. It will be noted that outside this chamber a painting of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent appears. Some months ago I wrote to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and to the Prime Minister, suggesting a number of artists' names, who are well known, and who had within the last two months painted prime ministers, speakers and other notables, and suggested that from this short list, or from any other source, these individuals might arrange to have their portraits painted now, while they are in blooming health. Of course, neither of these portraits would hang in the parliament buildings while the subjects are still members of parliament, or members of the other chamber. Only upon their leaving parliament would their portraits join those of other prime ministers.
It seemed to me it was an appropriate time to obtain these two paintings, and for once to give the objects of the paintings the opportunity to select their painters. 1 ascertained over the dinner hour that the portrait of the Leader of the Opposition is in process but, though the Prime Minister had a picture painted by a volunteer artist, it was not considered suitable for the specific purpose of hanging in the halls of parliament. Accordingly, the Prime Minister has been urged to make himself available to a portrait artist with all reasonable dispatch, bearing in mind
Supply-Secretary of State his other responsibilities, in order that his portrait might be painted.
That is the saga of the statues. I am not sure whether in the future it is likely that all prime ministers will be sculped after a decent interval, by virtue of the fact that nowadays it is not thought to be a good idea to have a forest of stone rising around parliament buildings.
A number of suggestions have been put forward, including the dedicating of fountains, something which hardly seems to be appropriate to the name of a former prime minister. There have been suggestions that a sculpture garden with at least busts, for instance in the sense that one sees in Rome, might be considered for the capital area, with prime ministers and perhaps other leading Canadians to be sculped from time to time. These are rather expensive. I think the last one done was by a Toronto sculptor. It was donated, but the pedestal alone cost something like $60,000. It seemed to me that the centennial year was a particularly auspicious one in which to begin filling in the sculping of some of the men who have caused the modern state of Canada to develop as it has. Accordingly it was thought parliament would be prepared to honour these gentlemen in this way by having them sculped. That is why the Department of the Secretary of State undertook to do the work.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for the full replies she gave to what I thought were two short questions just before the six o'clock adjournment. I do not intend to speak on the C.B.C. on this vote. I am going to speak at some length when the C.B.C. vote itself comes forward, which may be in a few days; but I do want to comment on some remarks made in this chamber this afternoon in the course of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.
This afternoon the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was passing some remarks about televising the proceedings of the security council and intimating how this would give the entire world the impression they were taking part in running world affairs. The comments he was making with regard to the printed word were not entirely commendatory and they did not rest easily with me, who has been associated with the printed word for the past 40 years, and my father before that.
How in the name of heaven does the hon. member expect the world to see the televised
758	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State proceedings of the security council or of any other legislative body that he thinks should be televised? Are we all to stop work to watch the television screen? People still have to earn a living, and according to the time zones in this world people have to sleep at certain hours, people have to work at certain hours, and people have to eat at certain hours. Yet we are told the impact of televising legislative proceedings would be terrific, that the world should be able to participate in the deliberations of legislative bodies, and that the only way it can feel it is taking part is through television. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the world still has to earn a living, it still has to rest, and people like recreation of various kinds at certain hours of the day or night. The fact is that television binds us to the time the television proceedings are on.
I cannot for one moment visualize the world stopping breathing just to watch the televised proceedings of any legislative body; and I thank God for the printed word, which makes it possible for us to get accurate, and fully detailed reports of proceedings throughout the world. Those reports can be read at the convenience of the reader, not at some time specified in advance by some deliberative body meeting in Geneva, New York, London, or Paris, France, at the convenience of that body, no matter what the time zones elsewhere in the world may have the residents of those zones doing.
I cannot subscribe to the opinion that television is so far superior to other means of communication that the world should stop whatever it is doing just to watch it; and I thank heaven for the printed word which gives us an accurate report, one to which we can refer days, months, or years later if we wish. In television you have it for one instant, and then it is gone.
The hon. member for Chapleau this afternoon was standing up in his place and asking that the Canadian Broadcasting government-and "government" is not a bad slip of the tongue, because they do what they very well please-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be given all the money necessary to provide radio and television services in what he calls the frontiers of the nation. The estimates this year for the C.B.C. are up $29,476,000, to a record $143,960,000. Yet the hon. member for Chapleau says that the C.B.C. should have all the money it needs to take television and radio to the far, outlying parts of this great country of ours.

DEBATES	May 30, 1967
In the name of heaven, does nobody pioneer in this nation any more? This nation was built up by people going out to the frontiers, developing mines and farms. They did not have television and radio paid for at other people's expense. They had fiddles and pump organs. They had musical instruments. They read books, magazines, and newspapers, weekly or daily as the case might be, and they opened up this country in the way it has been opened up. It is a credit to them, and I only hope we can measure up to the fine people who made this country what it is today.
e (8:20 p.m.)
The hon. member says television and radio entertainment should be provided. I point out that Marcel Ouimet says 62 per cent of the C.B.C. programming is entertainment. In other words, entertainment takes 62 per cent of this $143,960,000 which we are going to be asked to vote for the C.B.C. But more of that later.
Right beside the hon. member for Chapleau is his seatmate, the hon. member for Rober-val. I sat in this house that morning until three o'clock or 3.20 when adjournment was being held up because of a desire to have a milk subsidy of $5 or $5.10. I have never been certain whether it is $5 or $5.10, because the farmers carried signs asking for $5, yet all the discussions I have heard have made reference to $5.10. How in heaven's name can we expect the Liberal government to provide a milk subsidy of $5.10 and also provide radio and television facilities to all the frontier areas of this nation, no matter where one goes in this country to make a living according to his own whim-I am thankful it is a free nation, but the Creditiste members will not find it possible for us to pay $5.10 in milk subsidies and in addition increase grants to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as outlined by the hon. member for Chapleau.
I find it passing strange that two hon. members in this house who are seatmates should ask the government to pour out the money in two such divergent ways. I think we must think occasionally about the taxpayers, and I admit there are not many in this house who do. We must consider the person who is carrying the load both for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the federal milk subsidy.
Where is this French culture everyone is talking about? We hear a great deal about two cultures in this nation: There is only one culture, the world over. Civilization is the sum total of cultures in all parts of the world.
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
There is no such thing as biculturalism. I am wondering what culture these Creditistes are talking about. Are they talking about the culture of the past which built up this nation when the people had fiddles, hand instruments, organs and the like, or are they talking about the culture associated with television and radio, through which we are now going to open up the country? It will be interesting to know which culture they hold in the highest regard, the old culture of the past or the new culture of radio and television.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, while it would be tempting to comment on some of the remarks just made by the hon. member for York-Humber, I think I will deprive myself of that luxury this evening and confine my comments to matters relating directly to the estimates before us.
At the outset may I raise a question, and I suppose this is the only time one can ask questions which are borne out of the innocence of naivety or the early stages of one's involvement in enterprise. One of the incongruities which has disturbed me since becoming a member of this house is that, while we are ostensibly discussing the estimates contained in this blue book, they are the last things in the world that get discussed either in the house or in the committees.
I shall do no less in this regard than any other member in this house, because I think part of the difficulty in dealing responsibly with the massive spending that is carried on year by year by this government results from a lack of information on which to assess in any kind of rational manner whether the spending we are being asked to approve is necessary.
I am glad to say that I have learned recently from one or two departments that the officials themselves in various departments have become quite concerned about this lack of information and intend to put in some detail about the spending that takes place. This is something which will not cost the departments a great deal of time, energy or money. At this time I believe that every Crown corporation presents an annual report. These reports are quite costly, at least by Prince Edward Island standards. They are not run off on a mimeograph machine over a week end. Very often pictures are used for emphasis, and many other means are used to make this a presentable document, although often they are void of any hard and useful
DEBATES	759
Supply-Secretary of State information. More often than not these annual reports appear to be public relations documents. I suppose this is necessary on occasion to sell the services and wares of these various departments. It is my feeling however, that when we are called upon to act responsibly in deciding the value of the expenditures of various departments we should be given more information.
Frankly, I find it quite shocking that in certain cases we are called upon to vote large sums of money without having been given adequate information. Having regard specifically to the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we are given very little information. This year we are being called upon to agree to the expenditure of some $140 million and are told in three succinct lines that this is simply a grant in respect of the net amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service. I suppose that explanation is given year after year without being changed by one jot or tittle. We are not even told the number of employees required, as we are in relation to some other departments. These employee positions are now euphemistically termed "Positions (man-years)". I hope somebody will give us some explanation as to that particular designation.
It is my belief that if we are going to treat these estimates sensibly and rationally year after year, both in the house and in the committees, these large amounts of money should be broken down with specific detail. It may not be necessary to print those details in a fancy book or in a book at all, but surely the department should be able to give members of parliament this detail in order that we can relate our discussion to the specific items and perform the job we are here to perform, namely consider the finances of government.
Let me now mention some of the various areas of responsibility encompassed by the Department of the Secretary of State. I suppose I should take the time to commend the minister for the capable way in which she seems to have handled a great many of her responsibilities. Certainly she has one of the most interesting portfolios of government, although not an easy one. Indeed I wonder whether it would be possibly for her to remember in an instant all the various programs, corporations and plans for which she is responsible.
In reviewing her remarks of earlier today, I am disturbed to note that she did omit, as has been pointed out, three or four subjects which I think are of importance to us. The first of
COMMONS DEBATES	May 30, 1967
Supply-Secretary of State
these, which has been of interest to me for some time, is the Canadian Film Development Corporation. When we were asked to approve of the establishment of this corporation as quickly as possible there seemed to be great urgency to put the legislation on the books. The legislation has now been on the books for some time, yet this whole activity both publicly and privately has been almost as dead as a nit.
I am inclined to speculate that one of the reasons for this inactivity is that during the early stages the government was anxious to have this legislation become operative in order to produce a round of centennial films. That is a commendable enterprise, but as I have mentioned privately to the minister and others, I hope we have not established a corporation on the basis of a one shot affair, and that in fact we have established an agency to encourage a vital cultural development, which could be tremendously meaningful to this nation.
While many of us may think of a feature film as being purely entertaining, there is something about the nature of a feature film which reveals to members of that country and to others a great deal of the personality of that country. The feature films can at the same time be a valuable source of entertainment. I hope we will not have to wait too much longer before positions are filled on this important corporation, or for the necessary regulations to be laid down so that this corporation can come into effect. We have waited for a long time now, and I speak in terms of years, for something to happen in this important sector. Having passed this legislation, I do not think it is necessary for us to wait much longer.
I should like to refer briefly to another matter of great interest, and I refer to the subject of satellites. It is perhaps putting the cart before the horse to spend a great deal of time, as we have done and will do, discussing the C.B.C. and the proposed amendments to the act, when in fact the development of satellites may spell out the death knell to the C.B.C., as we have known it. If by the development of satellite communication in this decade we open up the opportunity for people to tune in any time anywhere to a variety of programs from various sources, our control of broadcasting through the C.B.C. will be greatly reduced.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I think it is folly for the government to delay, or at least seemingly delay, referring 
this important matter to the appropriate committee. It should begin in every way, shape and form possible to accelerate our involvement in this program. There are countries with a great deal of vested interest in controlling our communications sector, and if they steal the march on us in this regard it will not be to the credit of this government in the years to come.
Then there is the matter of educational television. This is a complex field, and' I do not pose as an expert in it or even as one who has strong opinions. However, I believe, as was echoed earlier by the hon. member for Royal, that since this question was of vital significance to the minister earlier this year, it is high time it was given serious study by the house and its committees.
Then of course there is the National Centre for the Performing Arts. I really did not expect the minister to refer to this matter in her estimates. There has been a joke going around here for some time, that we could not tell the National Centre for the Performing Arts from a hole in the ground; but we cannot say that any longer because it is above ground and we know that activity is taking place there. I am a little disturbed, however, by comments made recently in the city of Ottawa, that this particular centre may not be as available for the encouragement and development of local culture in Ottawa as I would like to see it. I realize that we are constructing a centre that will serve all of Canada, but I think we are realistic enough to believe that it will provide some special service and will have some special significance to Ottawa, Hull and environs. Therefore before too long I hope a public discussion will take place as to the actual progress being made with this tremendous cultural complex, that will be fully operational in our midst before too long, we trust.
Then there is the matter of the centennial youth travel program. I, like other hon. members, feel this has been a tremendous program and I am glad to hear it is not going to be dropped. I have been somewhat disturbed at aspects of the administration of this program and to learn that they have got out of hand. Through personal contact with and involvement in one specific request of a youth group I have noted that there seems to be either too much bureaucratic jungle, or perhaps the staffing requirements are not adequate to meet the kind of request that is being made.
I trust that as the program continues to develop the situation will improve. Perhaps
May 30, 13S7	COMMONS
there is not as much reason for a poor show in this regard, administratively, as in others, since it has been in operation three years. If expertise is not available or adequate, I hope that interested parties are being communicated with so that this matter may be attended to at an early date. Generally, Mr. Chairman,
I want to commend the minister and the centennial commission for a program that has done a great deal to foster a real understanding by young Canadians of what their country is really like.
There has been reference here today- though I had not originally intended to speak on the matter-to the possibility of televising and broadcasting the proceedings of this place and its committees. I have found some of the discussion today rather confusing. I find it a little disturbing that a person in this place, who by his very appearance here or position here is involved in the democratic process, would be afraid of allowing people to see what is going on in this important deliberative chamber. I for one believe that the more communication with and the more opportunity we can give people to understand what happens in this place, the better we will perform our jobs and the more participatory will be the democratic system that we hope to see foster and grow in this country.
It disturbs me that in this connection we have been so neglectful of two media as to discriminate against them. I think without question we have allowed for years those who work for the newspapers to have ready access to this house and our committees; but for reasons which are mostly myths, I think, we have deprived the media of radio and television from having the same equality of access to this chamber and our committees. While I am on this point-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You may ask it in a few minutes. While I am on this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like also to mention something with regard to technical innovation, which I believe will be exceedingly important. A few years ago, if I recall correctly, the then prime minister had made available in his office a rebroadcast, or a speaker system so he could hear what was happening in the House of Commons. As I understand it, there was a great disturbance about this and eventually that system was removed. I thought that was a great mistake. I think if wiser counsel had prevailed those who had been
DEBATES	761
Supply-Secretary of State alerted to this possibility would not have argued for the removal of one speaker but for the installation of one in every member's office in this place. Indeed, I would pursue it even further and suggest that we should have available not only an instantaneous reproduction of what is happening in this place but also what is happening in committees. This would not involve a great deal of expense, technically speaking. While I am sure there are those who would cry out instantly against such a system being adopted, I think anyone who would do so has a kind of childish naivety which does not accord with the facts. 1 think it would be much better if we had the advantage of such a system when at times we are detained in our offices, and at other times when we are much more usefully employed in our offices and are not specifically involved in debates that are taking place in the house. I hope that government at an early date will make these facilities available.
I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who spoke earlier today on the regulations restricting political broadcasts. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think we have some very foolish regulations in this respect. I do not know who wrote them, but I think they are very foolish because they seem to me to desire to make political broadcasts dull. If you have seen the number of people who normally listen to or watch political broadcasts such as "The Nation's Business", you know that they achieve the desired result, because these programs have one of the smallest listening audiences, not because the subject matter is all that boring or uninteresting but because the regulations controlling their format make it that way.
I could give a small example pointing out the ludicrousness of this situation. During the last federal election campaign, when I was a candidate, we made a number of film clips of myself touring the constituency, and what-have-you. We intended to use these film clips on various television programs. It was decided that we would add light background music to the film clips to improve the production, not necessarily of the candidate but to add some qualities to the production.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps that was needed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I may say that it was not necessary in this case. We found that because of these regulations it was impossible to play recorded music behind the film clips. I found this baffling to the nth degree; yet it
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State was defended as being part of the regulations. If we set ourselves up as making effective political programming, nothing could be further from the truth.
In the few minutes remaining to me, Mr. Chairman-and I told the minister earlier that I was not going to take too long-I should like to take perhaps two or three more minutes to deal with an area that concerns me greatly and has for some time. That is the question of broadcasting itself. The minister told us today that appointments will be made shortly to the upper echelons of the C.B.C. This has been greeted in general, I think, as being a necessary fact and a necessary act, but I am not totally convinced of the soundness of this move. I believe it is necessary to act with all reasonable haste to alleviate many of the serious problems that exist in the C.B.C. at the moment. I think the work of the broadcasting committee, and the legislation which is proposed to bring before us shortly, will attempt to solve many of these problems. However, I would think that the danger involved in this suggestion is the same kind of danger that we have faced in our experiences over the last few months, namely that by executive action the government of the day shall usurp the powers and responsibilities of this place.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If my guesswork is correct, the legislation that will be introduced in this house will be radically changed with regard to the responsibilities and even the method of appointment of the top officers in the C.B.C. In effect, what the government will do by making appointments now is to destroy the meaning of a good deal of the machinery that will be instituted at a later date this year. I think it would be either irresponsible of the government, or unwise of those people who are to be selected for these positions, if such a move were made. This may not be in accordance with the views of some hon. members, even on this side of the house, but I see great danger at the moment in appointing people, which would have to be done, to almost fictitious posts, because no such posts exist until the new legislation establishes them. Perhaps the minister can assuage my fears in this regard, but I am not happy with her announcement as it presently stands.
Second, we are being asked to grant a greatly increased appropriation this year for what the minister has described as a normal increase in salaries because of a threatened

strike, because of a good deal of new equipment, much of it related to colour I would imagine, and for the amortization of some of the capital products. If basically that is the purpose for which this extra money is being provided, this is indeed disturbing because it became apparent to those of us who sat on the broadcasting committee that one of the root problems of the C.B.C. was the fact that it was being strangled by having its television operation being made dependant on advertising. The way in which the problem was dealt with in the white paper did not offer a very good solution. I am not sure that the legislation will introduce a good solution, but unless we are willing to give priorities in the right order, some very fundamental ills in the C.B.C., particularly as they relate to television, will not be solved.
If we are going to make the C.B.C. into an effective instrument of public programming and broadcasting in this country, the amount of advertising revenue available must be a secondary concern. We must ask ourselves the primary question first, namely, how much Canadian content do we want in our broadcasting, what should be its quality and what will it cost us? When we have made those decisions, then I think we can turn to the question of how much we might recoup through the use of intelligent advertising, instead of setting in the beginning some kind of artificial formula or figure.
I think also, as the hon. member for Royal has suggested, we must stimulate and encourage the C.B.C. to do a great deal more in the area of public affairs. I for one have been amazed, even flabbergasted, at the amount of good and competent public affairs programming which has been done this year by the C.T.V. network even though, to my knowledge, it has not received one cent of public money to do so. I know they have done this in order to fulfil the requirements and expectations of the Board of Broadcast Governors; but if the C.T.V. network can do some of the programs of quality that I have seen, without any public money, then the C.B.C. could be encouraged to do a great deal more and better public affairs programming in the future, not programming that will either be sloughed off on limited networks, as has been the case with some of the better programing this year, or be given what might be called very poor time.
Public affairs programming by its very nature should be available to the widest audience possible, and when programs are treated in a cavalier fashion and shown either late at night or some time during the day when there
May 30. 1967

is only a small audience, this does not serve the Canadian people well.
Last year when we discussed the question of public affairs and when we dealt with the estimates for the maintenance of public archives I was concerned about the fact that the C.B.C. for some years now has been producing a great deal of quality material which, after its initial showing, is no longer available to the Canadian people. It seems to me there should be a more creative use of the thousands of feet of good film that is presently either lost or locked away in some dark cupboard somewhere. Years ago we established the National Film Board, with regional depots, for a lending film service. It seems to me that if some co-ordination could be established, much good C.B.C. footage could be made available for private showings, for discussion groups and for all kinds of local education through the National Film Board offices. I am also disturbed at the fact that a great deal of good footage has been seemingly lost or mislaid through inadequate archive facilities, both at the C.B.C. and at other archival institutions.
I should like to say a few words about a couple of very parochial issues. First of all I will refer to the problem of the national news. It seems that most of us in eastern Canada are reduced to getting an hour less of sleep per night as long as the national newscast is televised at 12 midnight rather than 11 p.m., which is generally the case in central Canada. I am reminded that in Newfoundland the news is broadcast at 12.30 a.m. I do not think it is fair to deprive a good portion of the Canadian people of an hour's sleep at night. We all need our sleep these days because of the many problems we face. I heard that this matter has been considered, but this has not been done forcefully enough because I believe that the technical problems are not all that great. I would hope that one of the good announcements the C.B.C. would make for this fall is that the national news will be made available to eastern Canada at eleven o'clock.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That would be broadcast at five or six o'clock in British Columbia.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There is an earlier newscast which of course is not available to much of eastern Canada, simply because it is not carried on C.B.C. affiliates.
Finally, I should like to discuss the matter of the second service. Apparently we have been given the green light to consider the
Supply-Secretary of State possibility of a second service all across this country, and I hope that this also will be given a good deal of encouragement. I think there is reason to believe that at present there is a possibility, without hurting the public broadcasting system, of making available a second service in all parts of this country which are presently being serviced by television. I know that in my own area there is considerable concern in this regard, because of the early allocation of channels, but this is a technical problem which basically can be overcome. I would urge the minister to pursue with greater expediency the matter of the second service and the opportunities it would afford to the maritime region. In some places indeed there is not so much concern now about a second service because they are seeking a third service and, in some very fortunate areas, a fourth. I think greater attention should be given to the establishment of at least two services across the country in a day and age when it is technically possible.
In closing let me say again that I think the minister has attempted, through a very complex series of responsibilities, to be effective in administering her portfolio, and I should like to commend her in particular for the way in which she has handled effectively the kind of communications that have taken place between this house and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I should like to go on record as supporting what the hon. member for Royal said this afternoon, that it would be a terrible thing if we ever got involved in this place in debating details of program policy. I think our job is to outline the principles on which a public broadcasting system should operate, and we should get involved as little as possible in the day to day operations of this important national service.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: In the first place, I want to thank him of his kind words about me; I have always felt that he was a real gentleman.
The question which I should like to put to the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), a question which the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has favourably answered, is as follows: Would he advocate the setting up throughout large English-speaking areas of the country of relay stations, that is repeaters
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State so that the programming of the French network of the C.B.C. could be heard everywhere in English-speaking Canada?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It appears that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is doing a canvass of this side of the house. I suppose he will soon have a petition that he will present to some responsible authority.
In essence I agree with his proposal, because I do think it will do a great deal to enhance understanding throughout the country, to make it available. In further reply to his question, may I say that I have been disturbed by the fact that certain areas in this country that are French speaking-I refer in particular to parts of my own constituency -are not being serviced now by the French network.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The only thing I would say with regard to this proposal about the repeater station possibility is that I would like to think that as French speaking communication, radio and television, becomes widespread across the country it would be possible for different French speaking regions to participate. I think part of our problem in this country today is that we equate, if you like, the French problem with the Quebec problem. I think all of us, perhaps particularly those who are concerned about the future of Quebec and its relationship with the country, should be concerned with the French speaking minority that have maintained their identity through these hundreds of years in parts of the country which have not yet received equal recognition. I hope the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and others from his area, will be as concerned as I am that we give them the opportunity to be fully identified as being part of this country of Canada.


William Warren Allmand: I want to take a very few minutes to ask the minister a question. This afternoon I do not believe the minister mentioned the report on election expenses by Alphonse Barbeau. The five by-elections yesterday brought to us clearly the need for implementing some legislation based on that report. I merely wanted to ask the minister if her department had any plan to put legislation before this house based on that report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I might answer that question. It may be recalled that on October 25 last, I think it was, the report of the election expenses committee was referred
[Mr. Choquette.l
to the committee on privileges and elections of this house. So far as I am aware this committee did not have more than an organizational meeting. I expect the same matter will be referred again to that committee for discussion. I know the government is anxious to move in this field, but it was thought, notwithstanding the fact that the first committee was made up of practical politicians, sitting politicians should have an opportunity to discuss it before legislation was brought forward.
So far as I am aware, it is my colleague the Minister of Transport, who has always had a particular interest in the matter of election expenses, who will have the primary responsibility for this matter, notwithstanding the fact that initially the committee was set up under the aegis of my predecessor.
If I may answer other questions, perhaps we would save some of the time of the committee, although some hon. members may wish to mention these matters later. The hon. member for Prince mentioned the fact that no reference had been made to the Canadian Film Development Corporation, legislation for which was passed a few months ago. It will be noted that there is no item in the estimates for this corporation. The fund of $10 million was set up under the legislation. We have been looking for space for the corporation, and I have every expectation it will be in business and prepared to accept applications no later than this fall.
In so far as satellites are concerned, which is a matter close to my own heart, I think I should say that this whole question is much larger than merely broadcasting, which is my responsibility. Indeed, the first responsibility is that of the transport department. There has been an interdepartmental committee looking into the matter. I think all hon. members know that Mr. Gilmore, the vice president of the C.B.C., has taken a special interest in this question. Indeed, members may have noted a report of a speech by the president of the corporation, Mr. Ouimet, in this morning's press on the kind of future there will be as a result of satellites, not just in the broadcasting field but in all communications fields.
It is presently under consideration by the government that probably a one-man special body should be set up to advise the government on the short, interim and long term problems with respect to satellites. It is my understanding that this officer, consultant or royal commissioner, whatever he may turn out to be, will be reporting to the Minister of
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
Transport. This officer will be presenting a wider view than simply broadcasting.
In so far as educational television is concerned, there is no item, as will be noted, in these estimates. There was an item for $750,000 in last year's supplementary estimates. This item was withdrawn. I said at that time, on the only opportunity I had to speak to the house about it-


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: It was never withdrawn; it was not proceeded with.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As a matter of fact, it was passed inadvertently by the committee and it was withdrawn from passage. As I have said repeatedly, the presentation of that unusual item was by virtue of an undertaking to the provinces that we would do what we could to speed the passage of this program, since we felt that we could not introduce legislation incorporating the government's views on educational television-not on programming but on the vehicle-and have it passed by the house before late 1967. This would mean the loss of another year to the provinces, who would be ready by the early fall of 1967. We, in the best of faith, did what we could. But the house was not prepared to deal with the matter in that way.
I never made any objection to that at all. I simply reported to the provinces that the house was not prepared to deal with it on that basis. Accordingly, a bill will be brought forward as part of the whole broadcasting package, but a separate bill on educational television, with which the house will be asked to deal. There being no item in the estimates for this, I did not think it was appropriate to deal with it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why not bring it in immediately?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot do that because there are a number of other items with which we have to deal.


Richard Albert Bell: If it is ready, it could be put on the order paper.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is considered to be far more important by the government, which after all has the responsibility for bringing forward legislation, to bring forward the major bill on the whole field of broadcasting which has been under study for many years now.


Richard Albert Bell: The fact is it is not
ready, and that is why it has not been brought forward.
DEBATES	765
Supply-Secretary of State


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Obviously, the bill was not ready when I prepared and brought in the supplementary estimates.


Richard Albert Bell: It is still not ready.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend is speculating. With respect to televising the proceedings of the house I might also tell hon. members that, regardless of my own sympathies, that we should at least have a trial period of broadcasting committees, the committee on broadcasting did ask that this matter be referred to it within the provisions of what had been referred to them last session. I am informed, however, that it is not within the responsibility of the broadcasting committee to deal with the matter, but it is the responsibility of the house and Mr. Speaker. Accordingly, the will of the house would have to be determined and made known through the Chair. Notwithstanding how I feel about the proposal, hon. members should not address their questions to me on my estimates but to the Speaker on his estimates.
There is one other item to which I should like to make reference, although I could make reference to a lot more. I feel that the speech delivered by the hon. member for Prince was a very useful one and he had some very valid points. One of the things he mentioned was film archives for the C.B.C. He should be aware that for some time now we have been considering the question of film archives foi all government agencies, with respect to finding a central depository for them, so that they may be available in the future.
In so far as the time of the national news is concerned, I would be pleased to pass on the information to the C.B.C.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It has been passed on many times, but pass it on again.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the people on the west coast would not be very keen to have their news delivered to them at the supper hour.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is not the problem.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to hear from some of the west coast members. Perhaps Mr. Ouimet, who is in the gallery, will be aware of the representation.
One other agency with which I did not deal was the Canada Council. Since an announcement was made some months ago concerning the increased grant to $16.9 million, I did not see any reason for taking the time of the house to explain that again.
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief contribution because I know members-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Pardon me, I just want to add one piece of information which has been sent to me from the gallery. I am informed that a maritimes pre-release of the national news is planned for the fall season of 1968.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We will be two years older by then.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am in the
habit of writing to the minister to give her my views on policy on occasion, and to bring to her attention any matters of direct concern to my constituents. Therefore I will not deal with any of these matters this evening.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the charming member for Prince. I agree with a considerable amount of what he said, but when he suggested that we should have television installed in our offices so that we could sit in our offices and watch the proceedings in this house, and witness the proceedings in parliamentary committees, I must say he is too much of a swinger for this old fashioned socialist.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if I may rise on a point of privilege to clarify what I said, I did not think I went as far as suggesting television in our offices. I do not think I am yet that much of a swinger, and I doubt whether that would be necessary. Basically I was talking about some type of radio connection, some electronic connection both with this house and with committees. I think that would be a good deal less expensive and just as suitable for the use I had in mind.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We would not have to look at you then, Bert-just listen to you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member would not have that experience, except possibly when I was in this house.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons I object to this proposal. First of all, there is the cost involved. Second, do you think that members would come down to the house to listen to debates if they could turn on a radio and listen to what is going on from their offices, or listen in to committees? Personally I think that this is a very impractical suggestion, though I realize it was put forward in the best spirit and with the best of


intentions. I think that when the hon. member has been here a few more years he will have mellowed in that respect, and realize that this house cannot function unless there is a physical presence here.
I just want to congratulate the minister for her detailed attention to any matters that I have brought to her notice with respect to policy and matters that concern my constituency. I must say I like writing letters to the minister because I always get such a delightful reply.
I also appreciate the work of her immediate office staff and also the work of her parliamentary secretary, who 1 think pays strict attention to his job. I notice that when it comes to ten o'clock he is always here to deal with any questions concerning the minister's department, if she is not able to be present.
May I also compliment the minister on her work in connection with our centenary. From correspondence and conversations I have had with visitors to this house, from visiting Expo and other events in Canada, I have had nothing but compliments as far as the minister is concerned. She seems to be the ideal centennial leader in this country at this time. I am not saying that to be facetious; I have heard this said over and over again and I think it is only fair to repeat it here.
I also want to express my appreciation for the work being done by the centennial commission. This is a job that requires teamwork from top to bottom, whether it is work connected with Expo or with activities throughout the country. I am very pleased to say that as far as I am concerned I think this work has been very successful to date. I wish all those connected with our centennial celebrations in this country, whether at the top, the provincial or municipal level, every success in everything they undertake till this year is ended.
As far as the C.B.C. is concerned, Mr. Chairman, as I have said I usually bring my complaints to the minister in writing. However, I want to say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the officials of the C.B.C., and also Mr. Warner's services, who answers inquiries from members of parliament, obtains scripts, and things of that sort. I have found him most helpful indeed.
For years I have suggested that it would be a good policy for the C.B.C. whenever it faces an engineering problem to let its senior officials and engineers visit regions which
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
have other problems related to television, radio, and so on, meet the people in the area and inform them about what the policy of the C.B.C. is and what they are trying to accomplish in the particular area concerned.
Quite recently a Dr. Caple from Vancouver went to the Trail area to discuss with the people there the circumstances relating to television, low-power relay stations, and things of that sort, which they appreciated very much. I suggest that this policy should be continued and extended. There is nothing like getting the participation of the people at the local level, Mr. Chairman, particularly with respect to the activities of the federal government. I have made the same suggestion to other departments, and I have found that wherever any department of government is willing, shall I say, to consult the local people about any problem and to invite suggestions, the services provided to that community benefit as a result.
I should also like to say how much I appreciate the services of Dr. Lamb and his staff in the archives, which I sometimes have occasion to visit. I am very interested in history, particularly the history of my own region, and I do appreciate the co-operation that I have received from this gentleman and also the lady staff. I noticed recently with considerable pleasure that the "Lamb" in the archives became a lion when it came to the act to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Museums of Canada, and I can well understand it. I think that before our museums are administered by a corporation as suggested in this bill, this matter will require further consideration.
I am not going to say anything about the National Museum at this time; I will save my remarks until we are discussing the bill that is on the order paper, which deals with the establishment of a corporation for the administration of the National Museum of Canada. I want to make some comments at that time about the organization of staff for the museum. All I can say at the moment is that I hope something will be done in the very near future to commence the construction of the building that is so necessary to house the National Museum and the work that is undertaken by its staff.
I have had, Mr. Chairman, a few complaints about the purchase of pictures by the Canada Council. I find these complaints usually come from middle aged ladies who were brought up at the same time as I was 27053-49!
DEBATES	767
Supply-Secretary of State and have similar viewpoints. However, I do have a Victorian point of view when it comes to some questions, and although I agreed, generally speaking, with the remarks of the first speaker for the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon, I could not go along altogether with one or two of his suggestions with respect to programming. He is a bit of a swinger in that respect-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Thank you very much.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and it would be rather unusual for an old socialist to find himself on the right of the Conservatives when it comes to these swinging programs. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I suppose we will have to put up with this sort of thing for the present.
I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that there has been organized in Canada The Heraldry Society of Canada. The honorary president of this society is Right Hon. Vincent Massey, P.C., C.H. One of the honorary vice presidents is the hon. member for Kootenay West, and there are many other much more distinguished personages.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I bring this to the minister's attention because in Great Britain the College of Heralds comes under the secretary of state. I trust she will take an interest in this organization because it may call on her in the not too distant future about some of its activities. The first speaker I think for the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Queens-one of the more conservative members of the Progressive Conservative party-said that civilization is based on tradition and symbols. With that I agree wholeheartedly-
The society of which I speak has been formed by a group of people interested in the subject and, shall I say, the art and science of heraldry. The society's aims and objectives are outlined in its constitution. Incidentally, various municipalities in Canada at present are anxious to have a coat of arms designed for them. I might say that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the minister for Leeds-oh, I beg your pardon-the hon. member for Leeds, is also very interested in this question.
I just mention this because I was asked to bring it to the minister's attention. As I say, in Great Britain the subject comes directly under the secretary of state. We trust that the hon. lady will take an interest in the
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State objects of society and its attempts under Canadian conditions to carry on the traditions and symbols which have been so representative in Great Britain to date.


Mr. Sherman:: I wish to join those who have extended congratulations to the minister and to the department for which she is responsible. I congratulate her for the great events taking place in this country to mark our one hundredth birthday of confederation.
The centennial commission is working wonders for Canadianism; it is doing a tremendous job in Canada. That we may all concede. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the minister for such exciting undertakings as the centennial pageants of all kinds including the train, caravans, canoe races and Expo as well as all those other exercises and pageants, great and small, in this country.
I said some time ago in this chamber and made the same point in a recent news letter that I distributed in my constituency that in my view the events taking place in connection with the centenary of confederation celebrations are making Canada the most exciting and dynamic country in the western world. I repeat that here, unequivocally. Every day, as I see young people and the not so young in my constituency and elsewhere, I am reminded of the importance and the impact of these confederation events and of the impact they are having on the souls of Canadians, regardless of their ethnic and racial backgrounds
In talking, however, on the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State and particularly the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation my remarks will not be so laudatory or pleasant. I did not exactly come to bury Caesar; but neither did I come to praise him. At this juncture I cannot join in the paean of praise, though I see signs that C.B.C. programs have improved. I wish to second something the hon. member for Prince mentioned, when speaking on the subject. He anticipated what I was going to say and said it more eloquently than I could have said it. He referred to the estimates for the C.B.C. this year being increased by an amount of $29.5 million to a total of something like $143.5 million-with little or no explanation of where the money is going. Tonight, tomorrow, the next day and the next day-until an answer is given-millions of Canadian taxpayers will be asking where that $143 million for the C.B.C. is going.
With costs and taxes at their present levels, with the average wage earner and taxpayer

caught in the squeeze in which he is caught, I do not think we can afford to spend $143 million this year on the C.B.C.
Certainly, the Canadian taxpayer cannot afford to have that amount spent, sight unseen, without knowing where it is going.
I suggest that the crucial aspect of passing these estimates lies ahead of us. It is not enough to place an item in the estimates and expect passage in this chamber without questions being asked. Questions will be asked and I doubt if the estimates, or this particular item, will pass until they are answered to the satisfaction of many hon. members and the people at home whom we represent.
I think the C.B.C. has done and continues to do constructive work in the field of English and French relations in Canada-in other words, in the field of Canadian unity. I salute the efforts that the corporation has made under the wise counsel and leadership of its distinguished president in this direction. The efforts are mighty and many. It strikes me, though, that much as the corporation is obviously interested in improving Canadian unity and in improving relations between the peoples and communities that make Canada a nation, it is not interested and in fact is inclined to be distinterested in bringing together the communities on the North American continent-and here I speak of the great community of the United States and our community of Canada. If, in fact, many public affairs programs of the C.B.C. are not actually divisive-that is, if they do not actually tend to divide Canada and the United States-there at least is no effort in many of these programs to improve understanding between our communities. There is no effort to enhance and enlarge social and intellectual intercourse between these great societies and to bring about greater understanding between us.
Without exaggerating, it can be said that many C.B.C. public affairs programs seem to labour under the delusion that to establish our Canadian manhood we must be antiUnited States. The corporation thinks that we must talk and sound as if we in this country do not like the United States. I do not subscribe to that school, Mr. Chairman. I am pro-Canadian, but I am pro-United States also, and I am pro-English and pro-French. I believe that many of the less responsible public affairs programs put out by the C.B.C. in the past two years have in them the seeds of potential harm, and may well destroy friendly Canadian and United States relations. The
May 30, 1967	COMMONS
philosophy behind such programs may be the result of omission rather than commission. But if it is a deliberate philosophy, it is a puny one, sir. It is a philosophy which is unbecoming to the C.B.C. or to Canada or to any part of this great nation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I do not believe the United States is any more correct in many of the things it does than are any other of the societies on the face of this earth. At the same time, the fact is that we in North America live with, toil with and work for a better world alongside the people of the United States in a far greater measure of involvement than any other society. Perhaps our two societies are intermingled and involved in this manner to a far greater degree than are any other two societies on the face of the earth. It is unrealistic at best, and destructive at worst, to foster a cult of dislike, disharmony, discredit and unfounded enmity toward that society to our south to which we are so closely related in blood, in economics, in philosophy, in origin and in the goals we set ourselves.
I think the C.B.C. probably has a greater responsibility than almost any other broadcasting network in the world in terms of its influence upon public opinion. I doubt whether this statement is much of an exaggeration if, indeed, it is an exaggeration at all. There are few societies I can think of, looking back on my experience as a journalist and a broadcaster before I came to this house, which have as great a susceptibility to one medium of communication as the Canadian society has to the C.B.C. media. Because of the disparate nature of our social situation in Canada, because of the great distances which separate us, because of the geographic divisions which are intensified by differing economic ambitions, because of regional, racial and ethnic differences, because of religious differences, because of the degree to which our population is spread out along one thin line across 3,500 miles of territory, and then sparsely dotted across the rest of a country which covers almost four billion square miles, the C.B.C., supported by public funds and having the prestige which comes from its title, its history, its good fortune in being first on the scene, and through some of the excellent work it has done during the last quarter of a century, has an impact on Canadian society which probably is unrivalled by any other broadcasting network in any other country in the world.
This being so, it behooves the executives of the corporation, particularly those who are responsible for programming, and for public
DEBATES	769
Supply-Secretary of State affairs programming in particular, to exercise extreme caution and the most extreme conscientiousness and responsibility in the area of program pronouncements, directions and themes. I wonder whether some of those with authority over public affairs programming at the C.B.C. understand this awesome responsibility and, if they do, whether they recharge themselves every day to live up to it properly.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke spoke this afternoon with some eloquence on the power of television. He gave us a profound description of the impact of television, one with which I agree totally. I do not altogether agree with the essence of his argument in connection with the televising of important international and public events, but that is irrelevant to the point I am making at the moment. I do agree 100 per cent with what I have called his profound description of the impact of television.
The hon. member was asked to give his assessment of the impact of print journalism as compared with television. He answered, correctly I believe, to the effect that there was really no comparison in terms of immediate impact and influence between electronic journalism and print journalism. I have never been able to agree with the old dictum that a picture is worth a thousand words, because it is too general a statement. Certainly no picture is worth a Shakespeare sonnet. No picture is worth the Gettysburg address. No picture is worth certain songs or scriptural texts that a lot of us can think of. But a picture, depending on the angle at which it is shot, can certainly distort a thousand words. In this sense a picture can be worth, or unworthy of, a thousand words or even a million words.
This is the danger attaching to electronic pictorial journalism. Television journalists must be studiously and conscientiously aware at all times of the danger of distortion, of imbalance, which can arise from misuse of the potent, awesome weapon which they hold in their hands as their journalistic tool, one which few if any of us understand at this point in the development of our society and electronic technology.
What is crucial about electronic journalism is the editing; and the question which counts is: What winds up on the cutting floor? The question which expresses our concern for the journalistic welfare of the society in which we live, both nationally and internationally, is: What is edited out of a television news story? The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo making his maiden speech in this house two or three weeks ago spoke just as eloquently
May 30, 19B7

Supply-Secretary of State as did the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke today, except that he took a somewhat different line, when he described to members of this chamber the immense and as yet uncomprehended power of television. There were many frightening suggestions and implications in his remarks, which gave all of us cause to stop and ponder the direction in which we are moving in terms of electronic journalism. He stressed the tremendous impact and influence of the medium, and, more important still, he pointed out that we do not yet understand how to handle it properly.
I have had some stern things to say about electronic journalism as far as the C.B.C. is concerned, particularly in the field of public affairs programming. Since returning from Viet Nam and other parts of southeast Asia a few weeks ago I have spoken publicly in the Winnipeg area on the subject of the agonizing war there and its coverage. I have criticized the C.B.C., among others, for what I feel has been an imbalanced reporting job. Understandably, I have elicited some reaction, a good deal of which has been highly vocal. Some of my critics, some of those who feel I have spoken unreasonably and perhaps irresponsibly, have suggested that it is unfair to criticize C.B.C. television for shortcomings of this nature since C.B.C. television is doing such a tremendous job in the field of school broadcasts and educational programming. I concede the point, but as an argument it does not wash.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
What these people fail to realize, or at least to concede, is that all television is educational. All television is educational television. Some of it is good education, and some of it is frightfully poor education. What I have asked for in the public pronouncements I have made on this subject is balance in C.B.C. public affairs programming. I am not a part owner of any newspaper, so I have no particular justification for criticizing the jobs that certain newspapers may do in the reporting field; but I am a part owner of the C.B.C, as is everybody in this chamber, everybody in the galleries, and everybody across the country and because of that we have at least the right to demand excellence and balance in public affairs reporting.
A few months ago there was considerable controversy over the interview conducted by C.B.C. one Sunday night with Mr. von Thadden of the Republic of Germany. There was much controversy over whether the interview should be broadcast by the C.B.C.,

and indeed over whether he should be allowed into the country. I believe the controversy should have started after the interview, not before it. The interview did more harm than good because of the manner in which it was conducted. It was frightfully badly handled. As a news interview it bordered on the destructive.
The people who handled the interview for the C.B.C approached it as they would have approached an interview with Miss America. What people in the C.B.C. and all other electronic journalistic media must remember, when they are talking to persons who are forming and helping create public opinion throughout the world, helping to shape public affairs at any level and in any nation, is that this is the big league. They are dealing with people who are highly qualified, cunning, and at least as intelligent as those who are conducting the interviews, if not far more intelligent.
When dealing with a subject as explosive and dangerous as the von Thadden interview, the interviewer should be ready for his subject. I would have no objection to having an interview with Adolf Hitler on C.B.C. television if it were handled properly and the interviewer were properly prepared; but the von Thadden interview was badly handled and left people with an entirely wrong impression, not only of the man but of the force of the issue with which they were concerned in that particular television episode. I thought it was distinctly bad journalism.
I think my views are shared by a great many Canadians when I speak of the imbalance, of the inequality, of the naivety and of the ill-preparedness of a good many of the C.B.C public affairs programs. I had considerable mail and comment on the subject from people in all parts of Canada after I got back from the Far East and made my first statements on the subject of Viet Nam. Lest people think I am alone in this matter, I will remind hon. members that the hon. member for Leeds made a very well documented and far-reaching speech on this subject in Winnipeg on December 8,	1966. He addressed the
Canadian Club in Winnipeg on the very subject which I am discussing, and pointed out the imbalance and the inequality in the C.B.C.'s approach to political issues of the day in this country and throughout the world. I do not intend to quote from his speech; most members of the committee are probably familiar with the address he delivered. It was one of the best received and most thoroughly documented pronouncements on this subject that
May 30. 1967

to my knowledge has been made in the history of television in Canada.
In any event, he, I and others feel it necessary to speak out on this issue, not just for ourselves but for thousands of Canadians who also feel concerned and who would like to speak if they had the opportunity. A few moments ago I mentioned Viet Nam, that agonizing war and the news coverage of it. I do not know who is right in Viet Nam or who is wrong, no more than does anybody in this chamber, or for that matter anybody in the world. It is an agony for all of us, and all of us devoutly wish it could be ended tonight.
However, when I say I do not know who is right I still reserve the right to form my opinions on the basis of balanced and objective reporting, and I do not want to be brainwashed into a particular point of view by the C.B.C. Although I may not know who is right on that issue I do know that the C.B.C is not right on it, and that from March, 1965 to March, 1967 by its approach to the Viet Nam issue and American involvement in Viet Nam it has generated much more heat than light.
It was this issue more than any other that really led me to the conclusion that there has been a serious imbalance in C.B.C. public affairs programming that has led to an anti-Americanism which has not escaped everybody's notice. The question of censorship by omission is the question that arises in an issue such as this one. It is not so much what is done as what is not done.
In connection with the Viet Nam war a number of questions have been covered quite thoroughly by the C.B.C., but a number of others have been ignored altogether. The C.B.C., for examples, has given a lot of coverage to the trend on the part of some young Americans to come to Canada to escape the United States draft and the war. I do not care to take a stand on that question. It is a newsworthy item and deserves some of the documentary attention it has received. But on the basis of the best figures I have been able to get from the United States defence department and Canadian immigration authorities, the ratio between young Canadians going to the United States to enlist in the marines and fight in Viet Nam and young Americans coming to Canada to escape the draft is nine to one.
Some 2,700 Canadians have enlisted in the United States marines to fight in Viet Nam. Approximately 300 American youths have come to Canada to escape the draft. I do not wish to argue which is right, but if we are paying $143 million to the C.B.C., of which all
Supply-Secretary of State of us own a part, and when we consider that in many communities the C.B.C. is the only source of major news, we have a right to ask for balanced reporting on an issue such as this. It is a peripheral issue to the war itself, but from the stories which the C.B.C. broadcasts we get the impression that the United States is totally wrong and that the people on the side of the Hanoi regime are totally right. I suggest no one can make that clear cut definition, least of all the C.B.C It should cover both sides of the story, and should cover both sides of the peripheral questions such as the ratio I have quoted with regard to Americans coming to Canada to escape the draft, and Canadians enlisting in the United States forces.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Royal in his eloquent address this afternoon said his theme was to stop denigrating the good. That theme he applied to the C.B.C. programming and the efforts it is making to unite this country. I suggest this theme can be equally applied to other aspects of our national life, especially the aspect of our important relationship with our best friend in the world, the United States. I say that theme should be applied equally to this question. I say, in this regard let us stop denigrating the good. I am not opposed to criticism any more than anyone else in this house. Criticism is all right and in fact is desirable. But I am opposed to distortion and censorship by omission. It seems to me this is the unfortunate pitfall in which the C.B.C. people have mired themselves so far as certain crucial, national and international issues are concerned, among them the issue of American involvement abroad.
For example, I am anxiously awaiting a C.B.C. documentary on a subject the hon. member for Medicine Hat raised earlier. A few days ago he spoke about the charitable job that some United States military and civilian citizens had done for the victims of the recent disastrous blizzard which occurred in southern Alberta. I know all Canadians would like to see the United States military and civilian people in action in helping those beleaguered people. I will welcome that program when it is made available to us.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Don't hold your breath.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: My hon. friend from across the way suggests I should not hold my breath. I think that is a valid admonition and one in which I concur.
772	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State
I have my eye on the clock because I know I am reaching the end of my time. In the one or two minutes remaining I should like to say I think there has been some recent improvement in C.B.C. public affairs programming, so far as slant and cant is concerned. I should like to think this is because some members and public figures, and I do not include myself, have spoken out, making it known to C.B.C. officials that they are not duped or fooled by this kind of imbalanced reporting, and that they are concerned with the objectivity of the corporation's reporting job. There has been some improvement. I earnestly hope that we, as the representatives of the beleaguered taxpayers who are considering granting the C.B.C. some $140 million, can be assured of continued improvement in this direction. I know that hon. members will await anxiously and excitedly with me for signs of that continuation.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: You certainly may if I have the permission of the Chair to answer it.


Auguste Choquette: I have polled two easterners and I want to try a westerner. I will ask my question in French.

Would the hon. member be in favour of the construction by the C.B.C. of relay stations, "repeater stations", to rebroadcast French C.B.C. programs to all large English-speaking centres in Canada?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, my answer to the question of the hon. member for Lot-biniere is a firm yes. I am in favour, but I should like to see improvement in public affairs programming, with the programs being made available by these relay stations to all Canadians of all languages and in all racial groups. My only fear is that some of the one-sided public affairs programs of the C.B.C. may be made available to those who have not already had their thinking distorted by them.


Mr. Grafftey:: Are you going to poll your own caucus? Are you going to poll Cowan and others?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, this evening-


Mr. Mackasey:: We have a new leader of the Tory party.

DEBATES	May 30, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps we should allow the hon. member for Oxford to proceed with his remarks.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This evening I should like to make some remarks about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, although 1 intend to reserve most of them until we reach a consideration of specific items. Let me say that I think it unfortunate that some members seem to view the C.B.C. as a variety of the sacred cow. They take exception to any member of the house who offers any criticism. I have criticized the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the past and I intend to do so again in the future. I hope my criticism will be constructive.
There is only one aspect of the C.B.C. I criticize. I am thoroughly in favour of and endorse approximately three quarters of its operations. I believe here in the house is the proper place to bring forward proper criticism, either one's own or that which has been provided by constituents or other individuals throughout the country. I think this is particularly true when the criticism is directed toward policy or the lack of it. Having made those remarks I shall reserve most of my comments about the C.B.C. until later.
It has been fashionable here and elsewhere to believe that one should never present a case on behalf of someone who allegedly has been mistreated unless that person is without the ability or facilities to defend himself or herself, as the case may be. When one presents such a case in this house the press and others naturally have some sympathy and look into the matter. If an individual happens to be of importance or prominence we generally consider he is able to fend for himself, and very seldom does a member bring such a case before this assembly.
This afternoon the hon. member for York-Humber brought such a case to the attention of his house, and I refer to his remarks in reference to Lord Thomson. I realize that Lord Thomson with his string of newspa pers is able to look after himself. That is not the particular aspect of the case which concerns me, but rather the principle. I am particularly anxious to put my remarks on the record this evening so the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to consult the law officers and give an answer tomorrow, or at some time when her estimates are being considered.
The facts surrounding the loss of Lord Thomson's Canadian citizenship have been placed before this house during the question
May 30, 1967

period and on other occasions. The government has always sloughed them off by refusing to provide an answer. Surely we should have a proper explanation from the Secretary of State on this occasion. This is a very serious matter in that a native born Canadian has been deprived of his citizenship for no other reason than that he accepted some sort of honour from another country. It is very strange that an individual can spy on his own country, betray his own country or commit murder without losing his citizenship, yet if he accepts an honorary degree or some sort of title he will lose that citizenship. This is a very dangerous precedent to set and I think the government should make very clear what is intended in this regard.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The first question I should like the Secretary of State to answer is this: Exactly on what occasions do you lose your citizenship for accepting what are known as titles? If I recall correctly, the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, received a very high title from his late majesty the King of Greece. I do not recall that he lost his citizenship.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He lost his premiership.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre said, he lost his premiership; but I do not think it was for that reason. I think this matter should be clarified. What sort of title, declaration or award is included in this policy, and in what instances does one lose citizenship for accepting these titles?
Lord Thomson was used as an example by the hon. member for York-Humber. Let us suppose Lord Thomson had accepted a title or an honorary degree from, say, the King of Sweden. I presume that Lord Thomson would in that case be stateless. Where would he go? These are questions that I think should be answered. If it is all right to accept honourary degrees or orders from monarchs such as the King of Greece-and the case of the former premier of Quebec is an example-why is it an offence to accept them from our own Queen Elizabeth? It seems very peculiar to me, and I hope the Secretary of State can explain these things. They have never been explained to date.
When this resolution-I believe it was brought forward in the form of a resolution many years ago-was drafted I should like to know whether the opinion of the law officers of the crown was sought as to whether it was valid. Since then the citizenship act has been 27053-50

Supply-Secretary of State passed. I recall-I am again speaking from memory at the moment-that there was a provision that any British subject domiciled in Canada shall not accept a title. I believe this was before the present citizenship act was passed.
I thnk this matter should be clarified so I again ask, why has Lord Thomson lost his Canadian citizenship? Is there any other reason for this? Is there any statute, order in council or anything of that nature which provides that a native born Canadian can lose his or her citizenship for accepting a foreign title? If so, I think the government should give very serious consideration to rectifying the situation. Here we have the case of a prominent man who has contributed much to Canada and has lost his citizenship for accepting a minor honour, because it really is a minor honour, from our own Queen.
This seems a very peculiar state of affairs and I think it should be clarified. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the government should be particularly concerned with these matters. All sorts of people receive medals and orders which are really exactly the same as titles, and which I understand in many cases entitle them to be called certain things. They receive them from His Holiness, for example.
I think it is fine to receive these honours and I do not know why the government has to stick its nose in, so to speak, and concern itself with the official recognition. If a Canadian citizen should for meritorious service in some field receive an award from another country, I do not understand why it is not possible for that citizen to receive the honour and retain citizenship in this country.
There is no reason why the government should recognize these honours or titles. In the Republic of France I believe that people call themselves dukes, counts and so on, and they are described as such in the social columns. I do not believe the government of France recognizes them as such. I do not think our government should start passing out titles-I have put myself on record before in this regard-but I am glad to see that we are now granting recognition for service to Canada. But if other countries give decorations or make awards to Canadian citizens, I do not understand why those citizens should not be able to accept the honours and retain Canadian citizenship. This is none of the government's business.
I see no reason why a native born Canadian citizen should be deprived of his citizenship
May 30, 1967

Supply-Secretary of State for accepting an award from our own Queen. I think this matter requires some clarification. It is a very dangerous precedent to set and puts us on a very slippery slope. Why should one lose Canadian citizenship and become stateless for accepting an award from another country? I think the whole matter should be clarified. I do not expect the Secretary of State to answer this evening, because a rather technical matter is involved here, but I hope she will answer before her estimates are passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two questions I should like to put to the Secretary of State before ten o'clock overtakes us. I should like to put them tonight because earlier this evening there was some discussion about statues. I was interested in the suggestion of the Secretary of State that we do not want a forest of statues on parliament hill.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A petrified forest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the question that occurred to me was a very simple one which I have pleasure in putting to the hon. lady. While we are still putting up statues, could not there be one or two to some outstanding Canadian women? I think this is very pertinent to the remarks of the Secretary of State. It seems that all the statues around the place are to be of men. I could suggest the names of certain women, but I did not rise for that purpose. I wonder if this is being considered. I am not suggesting that a statue be erected to the hon. lady herself.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not for a while, at any rate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There has been no woman prime minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do the statues have to be limited to prime ministers?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Up to now they have been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That may have been the case up to now, but is there any reason why that should continue? We have in this building the busts of two women.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Lili St. Cyr should be one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have a bust in the hall of Agnes MacPhail, the first woman member of parliament, and one was recently erected of Hon. Ellen Fairclough, the first woman cabinet member.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And the first woman senator.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And there is a bust on the other side of the building of the first woman senator. I am sure that in history, the arts and the professions there are outstanding women who we could recognize in this way. I hope I will not be accused of thinking only of women in my own party, but I think of Madame Therese Casgrain, who has performed many useful roles in the province of Quebec and in our national life. Other suggestions may be made, but I suggest that all the statues should not be of men.


Mr. Rapp:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very, very brief and I should like to direct them to the minister, through her to the C.B.C., and especially to this government. I am very, very concerned about the millions and millions of dollars that are being spent today on compulsory bilingualism. I would ask the government and the C.B.C. not to forget the fact, and to recognize that in a recent pool held in Canada, the United States and several European countries 76 per cent of the people voted that English be the language of the world, that English should be the only universal language, and it is the language spoken at all conferences held throughout the world. I would ask the minister to recognize this fact and to bring it to the attention of her colleagues. Someone must take a stand in this regard, and take it soon.


An hon. Member:: Hitler.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Never mind about Hitler. The other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: As I say, Mr. Chairman, the other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -is that I hope that some day soon the hon. member for Marquette-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, my remark will only take up about one minute.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
May 30, 1967


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The other thing which I would like to bring to the attention-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the house leader? Can he tell us what the business for tomorrow will be?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin with the second reading of an act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Richard Albert Bell: Could the minister predict the business for Thursday and Friday? I think it would be a matter of convenience to the house if we had some idea of what the government proposes for the balance of the week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For the remainder of the week we will be considering the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the department of the Postmaster General. I do not know which department will come first.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, generally I think it would be a matter of great convenience to the house if we could have some days in advance an announcement of what is planned.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, militants of the Confederation of National Trade Unions by the hundreds organized public demonstrations in about 15 communities of the province of Quebec against the labour policy of the central government in Ottawa which, by 27053-50J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion refusing to recognize natural negotiation units is infringing directly upon freedom of association.
These protests occurred in front of federal buildings in Sherbrooke, Asbestos, Magog, Windsor, Thetford Mines, Drummondville, Victoriaville, St. Johns, Beauharnois, Hull, Chicoutimi, Alma and in front of the C.B.C. buildings in Montreal and in Quebec city. Unless this dispute is settled immediately, it is to be expected that other demonstrations of this type will occur as well as a march on parliament by thousands of Quebec workers.
The government cannot plead ignorance of the facts, as the grievances raised by the C.N.T.U. have been well known for the last year and a half and as it has been promising a decision for more than thirteen months. But the systematic standpatism of the Pearson government is an illustration of its indecision and pusillanimity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Allard: -which now border on dishonesty, in spite of the laughter of Quebec Liberal members, and which could seriously aggravate a conflict which has already gone too far.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), as a former president of the C.N.T.U., caused a great disappointment to his former fellow workers when he proved inefficient in this regard in the cabinet and when he refused to recognize special considerations to Quebec, in all fields. The 200,000 members of the C.N.T.U. who paid him a good salary for so many years are under the strong impression that he has disowned their sacred interests to satisfy his own personal ambitions, thus supporting centralizing policies and uniform administrative standards throughout Canada.
In summary, what do thousands and thousands of Quebec workers demand? They simply want to choose their own trade union, and they refuse to be imposed upon by trade-union structures unilaterally established by the employer or its agencies, and even subjected to foreign influence. In short, it is the whole question of labour freedom which is involved, as well as some particular views of the Quebec workers who, on account of their different culture, have special needs which do not always agree with those of the great majority of workers in the nine other provinces.
May 30, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Therefore, Ottawa must amend the Industrial Relations Act and Bill No. C-170 to allow natural negotiation units. In addition, the president of the Canadian Labour Relations Board must be bilingual and the principle of parity labour representation must be recognized, as well as the right to vote for the president of the C.L.R.B. in case of conflict between labour unions.
Mr. Speaker, those are rightful demands based on freedom, justice and equality. I have spoken more than ten times in this house in the last 13 months. In April 1966, the cabinet set up a special committee to study those requests. Every federal member of parliament from Quebec was questioned and the great majority of them came out publicly in favour of the C.N.T.U.'s suggestions, as can be seen from the booklet entitled Parole de depute. And I find on page 16 of that booklet that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), who is getting ready to answer on behalf of the minister, agreed with the four requests of the C.N.T.U. I hope that tonight he will not disappoint that labour union.
The representatives of the C.N.T.U. came here to parliament to discuss those problems with the ministers and members. They will come back for the last time next Thursday to meet the ministers.
It is more than ever time to solve those problems before the dissatisfaction of the people reaches alarming and extensive proportions. The government should not forget the recent march of 25,000 farmers on parliament; it should get out of its ivory tower and legislate for the rights of the people and not for an undemocratic bureaucracy and sometimes unions too subserviently ruled by cosmopolitan and foreign interests.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in the very few moments at my disposal I should like to comment briefly on some of the points raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), who has been consistent in his representations in the House of Commons on behalf of the C.N.T.U. or the C.S.N. as it is referred to in the other official language of this country. When the hon. member for Sherbrooke stated that I agreed with many aspects of the brief of the C.N.T.U. concerning their particular problems, he is accurate. I personally feel that this particular problem has dragged too long. It has been well over a year since a special committee of the cabinet was established to solve the particular problem of whether or not the

C.N.T.U. has a legitimate grievance with reference to the definition of a bargaining unit.
I do agree, too, with the representations of the hon. member for Sherbrooke on the question of increased bilingualism. I am very pleased that every effort is now being made when different groups appear before the Labour Relations Board to make certain they are under no handicap, regardless of which official language they choose to use before that board. The very latest in simultaneous translation equipment is placed at the disposal of each and every person participating in these particular proceedings.
I should like however to limit my remarks at this moment because of one particular reason the hon. member has pointed out. I refer to the fact that representatives of the C.N.T.U. will meet with representatives of the cabinet here on Thursday. Anything that I may say now could be misconstrued and could build up false hopes, or dash the hopes of the very people who are coming here to meet with the cabinet committee. I do agree with the hon. member for Sherbrooke that almost 13 months have elapsed since the cabinet committee was struck, and the time has now arrived to make a decision.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In the few seconds remaining, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take issue with the hon. member for Sherbrooke concerning the salary that was paid by the C.N.T.U. to the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration before he became a member of the house. I can say from my knowledge of the C.N.T.U. and of the minister that he earned every penny he was paid for his work as head of that union, and it was due to him more than any man in Canada that the C.N.T.U. has grown to be a big, vibrant union in this country.
I do not think that the hon. member for Sherbrooke was really reflecting the present views of the leaders of that union. His criticisms of the salary that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration received when he was leader of the C.N.T.U. is unfair and unsolicited. I hope, along with other members of the house who are interested in labour, that following Thursday there might be some amicable solution to a very controversial problem.



INDUSTRY-NORTHERN ONTARIO-POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION AS DESIGNATED AREA

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment one of the page
May 30, 19G7	COMMONS
boys warned me that I would receive a telephone call from a Mr. John Teeter of the Department of Industry. I received a call from Mr. Teeter who informed me that the Minister of Industry is away, that the minister himself is anxious to deal with the question I asked and Mr. Teeter wondered whether, in view of that, I would agree to stand my question. I told him that I certainly would if I got the consent of Your Honour and of the other members of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he submit his question to the table again tomorrow, if he wishes to stand his question now.


David Lewis: If Your Honour means merely submit it to the table tomorrow, I will be pleased to do so.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will receive precedence in case other questions
DEBATES	777
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion come up tomorrow; in other words, that it retain its position at the top of the list for Thursday, there being no evening sitting tomorrow.


David Lewis: I appreciate that. I understand that the Minister of Industry will be here on Thursday, so I will bring the matter up again at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is understood that the question listed for today by the hon. member for York South will stand over till tomorrow, and that it will be included in the adjournment proceedings Thursday. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Auguste Choquette: We cannot make any agreement tonight; the house is adjourned.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, May 31, 1967