1968-01-30

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on labour and employment-Mr. Faulkner.
[Editor's note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about arrangements in contemplation of the forthcoming constitutional conference which opens next Monday.
The agenda of the conference was included with my letter of January 16 to the provincial premiers, copies of which were tabled in the House of Commons on January 25 and included in Hansard of that day. In my letter I suggested to the premiers that "we agree to make public the opening sessions of the first day when the various governments ordinarily present their initial statements". I also suggested that consideration could be given to having the closing session public. Arrangements are accordingly being made to permit full coverage by television, radio and press for these sessions.
So far as admission to the conference room itself is concerned, the main problem is space. The conference will be held in room 200 of the west block. After providing for the various delegations and their staffs, for television and radio facilities, and for the translation and secretarial facilities that are necessary, there will, I am afraid, be very little space in the actual chamber itself for members of parliament, for representatives of the press or for others. It has seemed to the government to be best to divide what space there is equally between representatives of the information media and members of the different political parties represented in the House of Commons. I wrote yesterday to the leaders of the various parties indicating that there would be, of course, accommodation for the leaders themselves, and giving an allocation of seats on a
party basis roughly in proportion to representation in the house. It will be for each party to determine to what members the seats should be allocated.
For other members of parliament who may be in a position to be present and for the press we will have closed circuit television in a number of rooms in the west block. In addition there will be the normal television and radio facilities.
As I said yesterday, it will be for the conference to decide when and to what extent it may be desirable to hold executive sessions. Several of the premiers have expressed the view that executive sessions may be necessary for the purpose of negotiation and full and frank discussion leading to agreement. Such private sessions have, of course, been the almost invariable pattern, for federal-provincial conferences in the past, but I think a substantial departure from past practice is desirable because of the special nature and importance of the matters to be discussed.
As members are aware, the Minister of Justice is visiting the provincial capitals to have advance discussions with the premiers and their advisers in order to ensure that the meeting beginning February 5 will be as productive as possible. The government will also be publishing, and will table in the House of Commons later this week, a document on its proposal for the establishment of a Canadian charter of human rights. The recommendations of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism have of course been public for some weeks and they will be on the agenda. I shall be making an opening statement to the conference, which I expect will be accompanied by additional material that will be made public-that is, the additional material -before the conference opens.
It is the hope of the government, as I am sure it is the hope of all members of the house, that we may see real progress at the conference itself and at meetings to follow, in the achievement of more satisfactory arrangements within the confederation of today and in the review of our constitution to ensure as effective provision as possible for the confederation of the future.

January 30, 1968
Canadian Constitution [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for his statement and the information he has given about the arrangements relating to the conference, in particular the arrangements made for representatives of parties in the house to attend as observers, as well as arrangements for other members of the house to follow the proceedings on closed circuit television.
The conference is, of course, one of tremendous importance. I would think it is certainly the most important federal-provincial conference to be held in my time in politics. It will certainly be the fervent wish of all members of the house, and indeed of all people in the country, that substantial progress be made.
The Prime Minister referred to a charter of human rights to be tabled in the house. We shall not attempt to make any comment on that until we see the proposed charter. If I may express a particular hope, however, it would be that it will be possible for the conference to make initial, substantial progress. I think we all recognize that the problems are of such an order that it would not be practical to expect a complete solution to be achieved in two or three days or even several times two or three days, but I hope the accomplishments in those two or three days will be substantial. I also hope that at the conference arrangements will be made for continuing not only discussion but working parties, so the country can proceed with actual work on these very important matters.
I repeat what I said when I started, that I regard this as a conference of the greatest importance and I wish the Prime Minister, his colleagues and the provincial premiers the utmost success in their deliberations.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we are appreciative of the arrangements the Prime Minister has made so the various parties in this house can have representatives as observers at the proposed constitutional conference. I think this is a very useful move if the members of the house are to be properly informed so that later we can discuss intelligently the whole question of constitutional change in this country.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give some thought to making it clear to the provincial premiers that if they in turn would like to include in their

delegations representatives from the opposition parties in the legislatures, they would be entitled to do so. I happen to know that in one or two instances premiers have indicated a willingness to do so, provided this were acceptable to the federal government. I think the more people we can involve in this dialogue that will go on for the next few months in Canada, the better the chance that we will get some mutual understanding of the problems.
I would also like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give some thought to the possibility of the observers being allowed to sit through the closed sessions of the conference. I know this is not customary when federal-provincial conferences are discussing financial matters and agreements, but in view of the fact that at this exploratory conference matters will be discussed which will ultimately have to be debated in parliament and in all the provincial legislatures, it seems to me there would be a better opportunity for an understanding in depth of the problems that confront this country if the observers were allowed to attend throughout the entire conference. I recognize, of course, that the Prime Minister himself could not make this decision and that the premiers in attendance would also have to agree, but I would like to proffer it to the Prime Minister as a suggestion.
Finally I would urge again, as we have done so often in the past, that following this conference the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the setting up of a parliamentary committee to discuss the constitutional changes which may be necessary in this country to ensure that our constitution is in keeping with the times in which we live. The parliamentary committees which have been in operation during the past few years on a number of topics have demonstrated the extent to which it is possible in this house to achieve a consensus on many controversial subjects. I think a parliamentary committee might do the same thing with respect to constitutional changes.
I should like to say also that we consider this constitutional conference to be one of the most important gatherings in our time. We hope it will be a success, and certainly anything we can do to contribute to a better understanding and to better co-operation among all parts of Canada will be done to the fullest extent possible.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the statement made
January 30, 1968

by the Prime Minister and, for the time being, we are satisfied, though we will attend the conference as observers only, since I understand that representatives from every party will be invited.
I consider this conference as one of the most important ones up to now. We are entering in a negotiation era which will concern all the provinces and the whole country. I think that this conference greatly interests all the parties in the house.
We bitterly regret that our parliamentary system does not allow representatives of the opposition to participate actively in the negotiations instead of attending the conference only as observers. Having been elected by the people, I feel that we are all equal and that we have the same responsibilities. I have always deplored the fact that, in such a case as this, we attend simply as observers while the party in power negotiates the agreements. To my mind, this is a defect in our parliamentary system.
I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister and, indirectly, the premiers of all provinces, to look into the possibility of inviting us to the negotiating table in this most important circumstance for the whole of the country.
We will consider it a pleasure and a duty to appoint a representative of our party as an observer to follow the progress of this conference which, I hope, will suggest a constitution more beneficial to all provinces and more likely to contribute further to unite Canada from coast to coast.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Prime Minister for the outline he has given us today with respect to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. I think it is logical to give the members of this house the opportunity of attending the conference, at least as observers, because in recent months some criticism has been voiced over the fact that we seemed to be moving in the direction of government by federal-provincial conference. I believe this move will assist in dispelling the fears in this direction.
The Prime Minister has indicated something of the agenda for the conference. I was rather perturbed to read in the newspapers the other day a statement to the effect that an outline of the government's proposals to be advanced at the conference was presented to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Quebec Liberal convention. I thought this was rather improper, if such was the case, and perhaps there should be some clarification of this point.
I am sure we all desire the further development of our confederation. Without question there will be a wide divergence of opinion as to how this objective is to be achieved. As has been stated, this conference will be more or less of an exploratory nature and it will take a great deal more discussion and many more conferences to work out a program that will be adequate for the needs of Canada and contribute to the development of this great nation.



INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS RESPECTING EXPORTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask whether undisclosed commitments have been made by the minister or by the government of Canada regarding the export of our oil to the United States.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I too have seen the article which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail and which contains a certain number of innuendos. One of these innuendos is that there is something tricky about the fact that the figures related to this arrangement have not been revealed. I have no objection to saying that some communications have taken place between the two governments on certain levels of oil export in order to avoid difficulties later. We do not want to have export controls; consequently we have to accept certain restraints in connection with this matter.
I want to say also that the recent exchange is part of the continuing process of negotiation on oil matters between the two countries. There is nothing new in this method. The process has been followed by the present government in the past as well as by previous governments. Let the record speak. The record has spoken eloquently in the past and I am sure it will speak eloquently in the future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister propose to disclose what are these levels to which he has alluded?

January 30, 1SS8
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. In my announcement of the 23rd, I think it was, I did refer to a framework of the agreement. This phrase was deliberately chosen. The framework of the agreement is something extremely complex. It includes all sorts of things like the good will of both countries in oil matters; our desire to avoid export controls; our desire not to lose what is referred to as "overland exemptions"; our interest in building the loop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the next few days, Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement on motions or on some appropriate occasion outlining the present objectives of this government with regard to oil policy, so the house and the country will be brought up to date on these objectives?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a month or so ago we had a full two day debate on these matters. I spoke for 45 minutes on the subject, and I shall be delighted to send my hon. friend copies of my speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, do I understand my hon. friend to indicate that he will not be making such a statement as I requested?


Jean-Luc Pepin: At the time, Mr. Speaker, I said-perhaps it was not very political or partisan on my part-that the policy introduced in 1961 by some hon. members now on the other side of the house was still a valid one, but I said we were improving upon it every day.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a supplementary question. In view of the fact that any arrangements between the two governments regarding levels of exports would necessarily involve the plans of the companies concerned, would the minister inform the house whether these levels agreed upon in the communications to which he has referred have been communicated, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to the oil companies concerned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is the second insinuation that I find in that article and I am very happy to be able to answer it as follows. It is normal for the government of Canada to co-operate with private companies, large and small, in all circumstances, in the interest of Canada.

Second, I would like to say that the project now under way, that is the Chicago looping, had the support not only of the major companies but also of the independent companies. That is shown by the statements made beforehand and by the messages of congratulations we received from the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that 54 per cent of the shares of the Interprovincial Company are held by individuals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his general lecture about his co-operation with independent as well as large companies, but may I ask the minister whether, be the companies large, small, independent or dependent, the information that he refuses to give the house has been given, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly to any of those companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Evidently, Mr. Speaker, no company would have invested $100 million in the United States and $80 million in Canada without having an idea of the economic possibilities of the project.


David Lewis: That is no answer.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what I hope is a straightforward and direct question to which I also hope he will give a reply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do not hon. members opposite also hope they will get a reply? My question is, are there in effect between the government of Canada and the government of the United States any arrangements with respect to the control of exports of oil from Canada beyond those that have been disclosed to the house or made public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have said very clearly that some communications on levels have taken place. I said this was not new, that it had been done previously by this government and by governments before that. However, I insist that even disclosure of figures would not give a true picture of the
January 30, 1968

situation because the situation is more complex than that. I also insisted on the fact that there were other factors that would have to be taken into account in order properly to judge the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question did not relate to communications about levels; my question related to arrangements in effect. Are there any arrangements in effect between the two governments beyond those that have been disclosed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend knows that these arrangements that are in effect are made every year. I have been minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they are usually disclosed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now embarking upon a debate. This is the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on this subject. Is the minister prepared to divulge to the house the levels that have been suggested between the two governments with respect to any restriction on oil exports? Is he prepared to give the house the information that has already been given to the oil companies in question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my simple "no" answer must be understood in the context of what I have already said on this subject.
fTranslation]



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production.
Can he tell the house whether an agreement has been reached between the federal government and the Quebec government with a view to establishing a civil defence school in Quebec?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I had talks last week with the secretary of the province of Quebec with regard to his intention of establishing in that province civil defence schools, such as exist in other provinces. No agreement has been reached in that connection.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of reported negotiations between Canadian and United States officials respecting an overhaul of continental air defence, could the minister advise whether the government intends to bring before the house in the near future proposals that would drastically alter Canada's commitments to NORAD?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses a word which is not quite correct when he talks about negotiations.
We have been aware of certain possible options which the United States government could take and which could concern the North American defence, but no decision in that respect has been taken and no negotiations, as such, have been entered into.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of these considerations would the Minister of National Defence agree to the calling of a joint meeting of the committees on defence and external affairs to consider these far reaching agreements?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It has already been accepted, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the committees should convene in the near future.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
CHATHAM, ONT.-CLOSING OF SUGAR REFINERY On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Onl.):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Can the minister indicate to the house whether any steps were taken by the government in an attempt to keep the Canada and Dominion Sugar Refinery in operation at Chatham, Ontario? Or are there any current plans to encourage the reopening of the plant after the unfortunate announcement yesterday by the company that it would close the plant permanently?
6134	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: During the course of the year there have been discussions with the sugar company with a view to seeing whether any arrangements were possible to enable it to continue in operation in that area.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the closing of the C and D sugar refinery, what arrangements have been made, will be made or are to be undertaken respecting the payment of subsidies for the growers in that area who supplied the sugar company? Will there be any change in this regard?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisler of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the subsidy payments for past years will of course be consummated, but inasmuch as the sugar company is closing its plant there may be no sugar beet business in the area in the coming year. In that event I would take it that subsidy payments will be discontinued. The whole matter will be looked into. I am meeting with the directors of the sugar company this afternoon and everything that is possible within the law will be done to protect the position of the farmers in the area.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty obvious that there should not be any sugar subsidy payments if sugar is not being refined. I was referring to the year 1967-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is presenting argument, not asking a question.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the subsidy payment is on the 1967 crop. Actually it is paid in 1968. I merely want to know what the plans are for the 1967 crop.


John James Greene: The announcement of the sugar company was only made known to my office yesterday. To the best of my knowledge that is the first time it was made public. Certainly this entire matter will be reviewed, and I shall be very pleased to let the hon. member know about any decisions that are made with respect to any change that may be applicable, just as soon as the government has any change to announce.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Agriculture assure the house and the sugar beet producers of Ontario in

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
the region affected that the contracts as arranged for the 1967 crop will be completed?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this matter will certainly be looked into and everything possible will be done to protect the position of the farmers who, as the result of the closing, certainly find themselves in a most difficult position.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I understand the Prime Minister told the press that the cabinet did not finalize its decision with respect to the implementation of medicare in its meeting this morning, but hopes to do so on Thursday. I ask the Prime Minister, does he intend to make a statement on Thursday or Friday on motions with respect to the government's final decision on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall complete this consideration on Thursday. As my hon. friend knows, we are re-examining this matter in the light of requests made by provincial governments. When our consideration is complete it is my intention then to convey to the provincial governments and the House of Commons the decision we have reached as the result of the request for re-examination, but I cannot give the exact day on which that will be possible.
Hon1. Michael Siarr (Ontario): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has tried to be flexible about the four points that are set out in the bill so some of the plans that now exist in provinces that have medical care schemes can be considered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait until I make my statement in the house and to the provinces. I hope to do that with a minimum of delay, I assure you.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this reconsideration by the
January 30, 1968



cabinet applies only to the date of implementation and not to the medicare plan itself as it is contained on the statute books?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in our re-examination we are concerned only with the time of implementation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hen. George Hees (Northumberland): Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether, since the number of unemployed in Canada increased by 87,000 during the past year, the government had any plans to lay before the house to correct this serious situation. The Prime Minister declined to answer my question because he felt my figures might be incorrect. Now that he has been able to read the Dominion Bureau of Statistics daily bulletin for January 11-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly put his question?


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has been able to verify my figures by reading the document I referred to, is he able to advise the house what the government plans to do to correct this serious situation of rising unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All our plans and policies are designed to keep unemployment to a minimum, and I hope in that regard we shall be more successful than the government of my hon. friend was some years ago.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government considers it quite satisfactory to have unemployment increase by 87,000 during the year, will it reconsider its plans and see if it cannot do a little better in the months ahead?



CLOSING OF PAPER PLANT IN CLARKE CITY, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the closing down of the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company plant at Clarke
Inquiries of the Ministry City, the only local industry, can the hon. minister tell us if efforts are still being pursued with a view to finding employment for the hundreds of workers who were laid off in that area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that duty falls to our manpower centres, and I believe they are at work trying to find employment for those people.



QUEBEC-REPORTED DAMAGE IN NICOLET AND RICHELIEU COUNTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Florian Cole (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport?
Has the hon. gentleman received a request from the municipal authorities of the towns of Sorel, Lac St-Pierre, and Port St-Franpois located in the Nicolet and Richelieu constituencies, as a result of flood damage by the St. Lawrence river? If so, would the hon. Minister of Transport be prepared to designate that area as a distressed area?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I have received some representations; I cannot say specifically from which organizations they came without first checking my files. I have made a full inquiry into the background of the whole situation. The brief report I have prepared on the subject is now ready, but I do not yet have a translation. I hope to have it for tomorrow, when it will be available to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question and ask the Minister of Transport whether the report he was supposed to receive from his department about the work of icebreakers on the St. Lawrence is ready and whether the minister intends to make a statement in the house in connection with that report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the report to which I was just referring. I am not sure that I should make it to the house, but the background will be available to hon. members

January 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry tomorrow when I would, of course, be able to answer any other questions by way of amplification.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I trust this is the report resulting from inquiries to ascertain whether icebreaking is the cause of the flooding or whether some other cause is responsible. In saying he is not sure he should make the report to the house is the minister suggesting that this matter is not sufficiently important to be dealt with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No; it is a very important subject, and I hope the information available will be to the hon. member's satisfaction.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the matter I raised with him yesterday, namely the serious threat of floods in the Bella Coola valley. May I ask whether the hon. gentleman has anything to report to the house about the situation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have received a report from the area commander who says he is aware of the serious situation on the Bella Coola. He also informs me that he has had no request for help from the provincial authorities.


Frank Howard: I am amazed that the provincial government does not exhibit more interest in this matter. Perhaps I might ask the Prime Minister whether any mechanism exists within the federal structure which would permit this area to be declared a disaster area and thus enable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that question is in order.


Frank Howard: On a question of privilege, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska was permitted to ask a question related to a declaration concerning a disaster area. This is an equally serious matter concerning an area of British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's first question was permitted. He then asked whether there was a mechanism or procedure available, and I do not think a question of that kind is in order.
[Mr. Hellyer.)



REPORTED HEAVY IMPORTS OF VEGETABLE OILS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government initiating any steps on behalf of the sunflower growing industry of Canada which is presently threatened by heavy imports of vegetable oils amounting to an estimated 39 million pounds in 1967?


John James Greene: I shall be pleased to take the question as notice.


George Robson Muir: While he is looking into this question would the minister take notice of the fact that 2,000 tons of sunflower oil has been purchased from overseas for delivery at Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Would the minister also look into the imports of rapeseed oil?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I would be very happy to do so, as I am aware of the great concern felt by the hon. gentleman for rapeseed and rapeseed oil.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Does he intend to give effect to the recommendations made by the Murchison commission concerning the Canadian Labour Code and exclude highway truckers from the normal provisions in the code?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson' (Minister of Labour):: As I believe I have stated on two occasions in the house within the last ten days, the Murchison report is being considered by officials of my department in the light of representations which have been made both by drivers and employers. When conclusions have been reached by my officials I shall be laying the matter before cabinet.
January 30, 1968


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to give the house any information about serious hostilities which have broken out in the Middle East, reportedly around noon today?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing to what came over the wire.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the right hon. gentleman been called to a statement made by his colleague the Minister of Justice during a recent television interview, when he said, referring to last April:
My feeling then was that the constitution was not very high on the list of priorities as things that this country must do. Quite frankly it's still pretty much my feeling now.
In the light of the statement made today by the Prime Minister about the importance of this forthcoming conference and the urgency attached to it, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether that statement by the Minister of Justice reflects government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There's no use the hon. gentleman attempting to drive a wedge between the Minister of Justice and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the Prime Minister admits a gap is there.



SUPPORT OP IMPORT RESTRICTIONS BY U.S. UNION LEADERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister been informed of the changing policy by the A.F.L.-C.I.O., that is to say by the heads of the international unions in the United States, by virtue of
Inquiries of the Ministry which instead of supporting liberal trade policies they intend to support protectionist policies aimed at restricting imports, including textiles, manufactured goods and oil, from countries such as Canada in an effort to protect the living standards of United States workers? If so, what does the hon. gentleman intend to do to protect the living standards of Canadian workers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I have not heard of any change in the attitude of those organizations, but I am sure the house would agree that if a policy similar to that suggested were followed by organizations such as these throughout the world, mutual impoverishment would result.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Chatwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with press reports claiming that Mr. Alex MacLaurin, president of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has expressed a complaint that the Canadian government has barred his observers from the annual seal hunt in the gulf. Can the minister confirm or deny this allegation and, if it is correct, why was this action taken?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: A few days ago I read with astonishment a Canadian Press report which appeared in a number of Canadian newspapers to the effect that the president of the Canadian S.P.C.A. had protested to the Canadian government about being barred, for the first time, from sending observers to the seal hunt.
The facts are as follows. About two weeks ago I wrote to the president of the Canadian S.P.C.A. advising him, well in advance of the seal hunt, that in view of the heavy departmental commitments in connection with law enforcement during the hunt the helicopters and other equipment available to the department must be used solely for departmental purposes. This is altogether different from barring S.P.C.A. representatives as observers from the annual seal hunt.


James Russell Keays: May I ask the
minister whether he will consider notifying the president of the New Brunswick humane society in order to avoid publication of fictitious reports on the hunt.
6138	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN FINANCING METHODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister report any progress with regard to his desire as expressed in the budget speech, to make Air Canada more public?


Mitchell William Sharp: Our discussions in connection with the financing of Air Canada are proceeding. I know the Minister of Transport shares my view that very substantial progress is being made in this direction.



WINNIPEG-JET OVERHAUL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to confirm reports to the effect that Montreal will be the future site of intercontinental supersonic air traffic; and does Air Canada still feel its major jet overhaul facilities should be maintained in Winnipeg?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is an extremely urgent matter. I would think it is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the fact that we have now spent at least eight sitting days on one clause of the broadcasting bill, would the government house leader consider calling a meeting of the various house leaders in an effort to see whether we can reach some agreement concerning the amount of time we will spend on this matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already had a word with the house leader of the official opposition. I hope we will get together this afternoon to discuss a possible time limitation with regard to this measure which is now before the committee.
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	January 30, 1968



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. Is it the intention of the minister to call the public accounts committee and, if so, when may we expect that announcement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to have a word with my hon. friend, as chairman of the committee, to determine whether a reference should be made to it.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF REFERENCE TO TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, as a point of order may I draw to the attention of members of the house the government order with regard to the reference to the standing committee on transport and communications. There is some desire on the part of hon. members in all parts of the house to have this committee set up. I wonder whether I might call this as the first item of government business on the understanding that it would be passed without debate.


Mr. Starr:: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Yesterday, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West concerning an increase in the permissive income ceiling for war veterans allowance recipients, the minister gave a certain answer. Has the minister now informed himself, and can he give the house the correct answer?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I gave the correct
answer as part of the answer to another question raised a few moments later. I think the hon. member will find it a little later on in the proceedings.
January 30, 1968



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On November 27 the minister indicated that the proposed 1,000 per cent rate increase on cream shipments by rail would be postponed for 60 days to allow for further consultation. Since 60 days have almost elapsed has the minister any further information with regard to the rates?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister if he does not have the answer to my question today, whether he will give it at a future date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do have the answer. I was involved in the solution of a very important problem at the time the hon. member asked the question. I appreciate his geniality and co-operation in posing the question a second time.
I presume he is referring to the freight rates on cream. The railways have advised the commission that they will file tariff supplements to further postpone the coming into effect of the increase on cream and return empties for a period of at least another 30 days beyond February 3.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that more than four years ago, the Prime Minister promised that members of the R.C.M.P. on duty on parliament hill would be bilingual, and in view of the fact also that nothing seems to have been done in this direction until now, could the Prime Minister tell me when measures will be taken to ensure that members of the R.C.M.P. on parliament hill are bilingual to greet people coming from all parts of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe this is truly an urgent question that may be put at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry
If the hon. member considers there is really an emergency, he might bring it up on the adjournment motion.


Gilles Grégoire: I must admit there is no great urgency because this matter has been under consideration for four years.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister prepared to answer the question I asked on January 22, with regard to increasing the exemptions for contributions under the Canada Pension Plan for casual workers in agriculture?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to reply today but I will do so tomorrow.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am now ready to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Middlesex West.
A change such as that suggested by the hon. member would require an amendment of the Canada Pension Plan which would have to be approved by the provinces. This matter, like all those concerning which representations have been made, will be given careful consideration the next time the house studies the Canada Pension Plan with a view to effecting changes therein.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I do so because of the grave importance this matter has in respect of the greenhouse industry. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a recent speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Toronto in which he is reported to have said that he suspects that any protection given the greenhouse industry will be of a temporary nature so the growers can phase out their capital commitments and seek other means of earning a livelihood. May I ask the

January 30, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry right hon. gentleman whether this is a reflection of official government policy in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been directed to this report of the speech. I shall be glad to look into it.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now that he has solved his problem for the moment I should like to ask him, in view of the growing concern among commercial fishermen and other boat owners on the coast of British Columbia about the continued application of the 1964 wharfage regulations, whether he is now in a position to inform the house what are the intentions of the government in respect of implementing the recommendations in the report of Dr. Tom How concerning side wharfage and small vessel harbour administration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not in a position to do so at the moment, Mr. Speaker. This is a very complicated question, as my hon. friend knows. I might try to do so at a later date, but I do not have the information at the moment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be bold enough to give us some target date by which he expects to make an announcement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I would be prudent not to do so, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Some months ago, the government established a committee to inquire into the situation of farm problems in Canada. Is the preliminary report of this committee expected soon?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the first report is expected in December 1968.
[Mr. Danforth.l



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Since Colonel Edward Churchill has been working for about half a year on the rescheduling and revising of plans with regard to the Northumberland strait crossing, can the minister tell us when we may expect a resumption of that important project?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the project is proceeding very well at the present time. I do not know what the hon. member means by "resumption".



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I understand that on motions my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam, suggested that the Prime Minister might indicate to the provincial premiers that the provincial opposition leaders or their representatives might be invited to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference in the same capacity as the opposition members of this house. Will the Prime Minister give consideration

perhaps favourable consideration -to this suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is entirely up to the premiers of the provinces whether they would wish to bring with them representatives of the other parties. We would have no objection whatever. Of course the question of space would be involved, and we might have to throw out some of the press and radio representatives.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question and ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the independent members will also be invited as observers to this conference?
January 30, 1968


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should be given representation in exactly the same proportion as the other parties.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 20 the minister indicated he had received representations from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta pertaining to Indian affairs, particularly as they affect the responsibility of provincial governments in respect of child welfare. Has any decision been reached as a result of these representations and is the minister in a position to disclose that decision to the house?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think a not dissimilar question was asked by the hon. member on November 20. I told him at that time that we had replied to the prairie provinces suggesting that in our view the problems were different in each province and that we might prepare some background papers before we met. I received a letter today from Hon. Mr. Colborne of Alberta who thinks it is quite unnecessary to prepare papers and wants a meeting held soon.
I want to assure the house that I am gratified by what I interpret as an indication on the part of the prairie provinces that in their view now the Indians of Canada, in addition to being Canadian citizens, are also citizens of the provinces. I am sure hon. members will also be gratified by that realization. There seems to be an indication that the provinces are agreed that the services granted to all other citizens in the provinces should be granted as well to the Indians, so we will not be long delayed in meeting with the provinces.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to consider and report upon all aspects of transportation as they 27053-3871
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting relate to the Atlantic Provinces, taking account of the conclusions and recommendations of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Study, January, 1967, Volumes 1 to 12, prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, and the Report of the Royal Commission on Transportation, 1961, Volumes 1 and 2, and recommend what measures should be initiated in order that the national transportation policy may be as fully implemented as possible in the Atlantic Provinces.
That the said Committee shall examine, in particular, the effectiveness of the Maritime Freight Rates Act with power to study and make recommendations concerning:
(a)	changes or alterations which may now be desirable in the Maritime Freight Rates Act; and
(b)	alternative methods of assisting transportation in the Atlantic Provinces either in addition to the Maritime Freight Rates Act or in substitution therefor in whole or in part with the purpose that maximum benefits be obtained by the Atlantic Provinces from the expenditure being made.
That for the purposes of this inquiry, the said Committee shall be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada; that the Clerk and necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany said Committee, and that the Committee be authorized to engage the services of counsel accountants, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night, I was stating my opposition to the passing of clause 2(i) of Bill No. C-163.
I was saying that education is not a matter of federal responsibility but that, under the British North America Act, it comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is why I do not see any need for paragraph (i) which stipulates that:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that Quebec already has facilities for educational broadcasting and I would like to correct my statement to that effect. It would have been more

January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting accurate to say that Quebec owns a studio and that it has rented some equipment to make films that would be shown on television as educational programs.
In fact, there is now a pilot project known as "Tevec" which is merely an experiment, as should be done normally. A quite numerous team is now working on this.
A series of studio programs has been produced with rented equipment, it is true, and not only is the project under way, but it is making good progress.
A few members of that team were telling me today that if the experiment proved a success, Quebec would purchase equipment for educational broadcasting and if it failed, it would drop the project. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is useless to provide the Canadian broadcasting system with such equipment which will be of no use, since experiments would have been unsuccessful.
Therefore, I wonder why that subclause is included in Bill No. C-163. I think that it would be a duplicate use of public funds, since Quebec is now organizing such an educational broadcasting system, since it already has a well-experienced team working in that field and has rented the complete equipment to start producing educational programs. I wonder why Ottawa would start over and pay again for present facilities.
Administrative efficiency requires indeed that duplication of expenses be avoided for already available equipment.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the constitutional and practical arguments which I put forward yesterday in affecting to that subclause, the presentation of an amendment is advisable.
Therefore, I would move that subclause (i) of clause 2 be purely and simply deleted, because it adds nothing to the bill on Canadian broadcasting and, moreover, it is contrary to the constitution, to the British North America Act.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: If the hon. member is against this subclause of clause 2, all he has to do to show his disapproval is to vote against it when it is put to the vote.


Gilles Grégoire: As you wish, Mr. Chairman; do that.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want this part in respect of educational facilities to pass without making some remarks about it. When the committee on broadcasting begins 

its hearings on educational television one of the problems it will have to solve is the definition of educational television. I suggest it might be a little difficult to define this phrase because there are two possible definitions. The first relates to educational television for elementary and secondary schools and perhaps colleges. The second relates to adult education.
Having regard to school broadcasting, it seems to me there has been an inexcusable delay in bringing in a bill to establish facilities for educational television. At least two provinces that I know of, Alberta and Ontario, have been pressing the federal government for some time to build these transmission facilities. Indeed, Alberta was ready to start a year and a half ago and Ontario has been rather impatient.
The committee on broadcasting is going to begin its hearings on this subject on February 8. It will be hearing from those provinces which wish to be represented and from representatives of private organizations and perhaps from individuals. At the rate we are dealing with broadcasting matters here in Ottawa it is difficult to tell when this program will actually come into force. The committee will hold hearings in February and March and some time after that the bill will come back to the house. So educational broadcasting may not even begin in the year 1968.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I have the feeling so far as school broadcasting is concerned that we are once again in the position where events may overtake us. It seems to me that before very long schools in the urban areas of Canada will not be requiring the regular, through the air transmission facilities. With the developments which have taken taken place in closed circuit systems, more extensive use of films and videotapes and that sort of thing, it seems to me that the larger centres and any school district which is in an urban area will not need through the air facilities. They may still be required for some time to come in rural areas, but I suggest that technical developments are overtaking us in this field.
With regard to the second possible definition of educational television, that concerning adult education, I think there are some difficulties. The definition is very difficult. "Adult education" can mean almost anything, It can mean the ordinary type of public affairs broadcasting which is now taking
January 30, 1968

place on the regular television and radio stations, it can mean actual instruction in university and college courses tor adults, and it can mean instruction of the type with which the department of manpower is concerned. I remind the hon. member for Lapointe that this is a very legitimate concern of the federal government which recognizes that it is responsible for manpower training. Television can be used for this purpose.
It seems to me that the general heading of "adult education" might be interpreted in some provinces to mean political broadcasting as well, and this is where the difficulty may lie. If some attention is not given to this aspect of the matter we will have ten provincial systems of broadcasting in relation to adult educational programs and while some of the broadcasting carried out may indeed provide adult education some of it may simply be propaganda or politics.
I do not know how this difficulty can be overcome. It may be that in each province it will be necessary to establish an authority such as the Independent Television Authority in Britain to be responsible for adult educational broadcasting. I am thinking of an authority on which would be represented the Canadian Association for Adult Education, or the provincial equivalent, the school trustees, associations of teachers, and perhaps chambers of commerce and trade unions. It seems to me that unless we figure out how this matter is to be handled by some independent authority, educational television under the general heading of "adult education" will be open to possible abuse. There are very great possibilities in this area which need to be explored and exploited. I hope we can find a way of doing it so that this type of broadcasting does not become simply a propaganda arm for provincial governments.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that many of the complaints, suggestions and observations which hon. members have been making in the last few days respecting the operations of the C.B.C. and Bill C-163 have been made in succeeding sessions of parliament for several years. Yet the C.B.C. goes on its merry way paying very little attention, if any, to appeals made by members of this house in their crusade for the elimination of programs from the C.B.C which are offensive to a wholesome and decent way of life. The type of degrading-
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Mr. Slanbury:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which subclause is under discussion? If it is subclause (i) I think the hon. member is off base.


Percy Verner Noble: I will come to that, Mr. Chairman, if you will give me a little time. I think we can deal in generalities.


Miss LaMarsh:: No, you cannot.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have been on this bill for nine days and nobody can deal in generalities.


Percy Verner Noble: The type of degrading programs that many objected to as far back as October, 1964, have been presented from time to time without moderation. We appear to be as helpless today as we were then in having action taken that would assure clean entertainment. Two films that were viewed on the C.B.C in recent weeks and which aroused the ire of people across the country were "Waiting for Caroline" and "The Ernie Game". These films were indecent, immoral and revolting. They were produced jointly by the National Film Board and the C.B.C. at a total cost of $831,813.72 and their completion took 70 people 84 weeks and five days.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now seeking to circumvent your ruling. He must be aware of the rules because he has been a member of the house much longer than I have, and he must know after nine days of debate that the house has a number of times decided that we would stick strictly to the subclause under discussion. "The Ernie Game" and "Waiting For Caroline" were programs of general entertainment value on the C.B.C. and have absolutely nothing to do with educational television.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I agree that the hon. gentleman may not be confining his remarks to the discussion of this particular subclause. I was listening to him very carefully and hoping that eventually he would come back to the subclause. I presume that is what he intends to do.


Percy Verner Noble: The showing of these films by the C.B.C. was an insult to the intelligence and moral standards of this nation. Hundreds of letters and telephone calls were directed to members of parliament and senators voicing their disgust and anger.
6144	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What are you reading from?


Percy Verner Noble: It seems that the powers that be in the C.B.C. who are charged with the responsibility for programming have depraved and perverted minds and their desire and motive are to reduce all Canadians to their own level.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What are you reading from?


Percy Verner Noble: There was evidence of such behaviour on the program "The Way It Is" on January 21 last, when a young man, apparently well educated-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry to keep returning to this subject, Mr. Chairman, but there is a great deal of public business to be done. The members of the opposition who were on the committee have had their say. We have had nine days of debate on this clause. The hon. member is making a mockery of the rules of the house. He is reading from a prepared script, and his remarks have nothing whatsoever to do with the clause now under debate.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: To make the matter a little clearer may I read the subclause we are studying at the moment. It reads as follows:
(i) facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
That is the subclause under study at the present time.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would help matters if I pointed out to my colleague the hon. member for Grey North that, as he is probably aware, subclause (h) was stood for consideration yesterday in deference to my request, and suggested that perhaps the hon. member's remarks would apply more aptly to the study of subclause (h) with regard to which we propose to move an amendment, as the minister knows. It might help to expedite the passage of the subclause now under discussion if the hon. member would take that into consideration.


Percy Verner Noble: If this is your wish, Mr. Chairman, I will gladly postpone my remarks until subclause (h) is under discussion and will speak then.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Actually this is not the wish of the Chair. The wish of the Chair is that the hon. member confine his remarks to the subclause under study. I doubt very much that if he waited until subclause

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
(h) was under study what he has been saying would apply. I am sure the committee would prefer, and the rule is, that the hon. gentleman confine his remarks to the subclause under study.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to continue interrupting I will wait until I am in order to make my speech. If the minister really wanted to get this bill through she would not make these interruptions and I would have completed my speech by now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have been here for the last nine days.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question? Shall subclause (i) carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to insist upon the fact that education in no way falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government and, before we vote on this clause, I should like to emphasize that education is a matter for provincial jurisdiction.
We talk about constitutional reform, but the first thing we do is to put the constitution completely aside.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member knows very well that the central government recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces in the matter of education. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) have made statements to this effect on several occasions. However, education is not an issue here, since subclause (i) deals with technical facilities for educational broadcasting and not with education itself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary says that technical facilities by means of radio and television broadcasting are involved. On the other hand, the broadcasting system is under control of the federal government. The federal government has authority over the broadcasting system and controls the facilities of educational broadcasting and, obviously, the federal government will control the educational broadcasts. That is what paragraph (i) provides:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
January 30, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6145
This means that educational television will be turned over to the federal government. If this is done only to simplify things, the fact that the Quebec government and other provincial governments already have facilities for educational television should also be taken into consideration.
There is in Quebec a pilot-project called "Tevec" created by an organization presenting educational programs in Jonquiere and Chicoutimi. It is a pilot project being tried out in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. Obviously, the Quebec government did not wish to extend it throughout Quebec until tests are made in a given area. Precisely, the area of Saguenay-Lake St. John was chosen as a pilot area for educational TV.
The member for Lake St. John (Mr. Si-mard) is here; he is aware that every morning and every night, the private television stations are broadcasting educational programs under the Tevec plan.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The hon. member is now speaking of educational programs supplied by the province. The clause now under discussion states:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
This does not means, in the opinion of the Chair, that the federal government will interfere in educational programs. The educational programs mentioned by the member are provincial educational programs and are not in the least related to the clause now under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Exactly, Mr. Chairman, to connect it to the clause, I take the following example: If the Quebec government already has its own television facilities for educational purposes, why should the federal government interfere in the field of education? That does not make sense.
I say that education comes under provincial jurisdiction and the federal parliament wants to get into a field which is the sole responsibility of the provinces by including in one of its bills a clause which says:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting.
I am told: We do not want to interfere in the field of education, we want only to provide facilities for educational broadcasting within the national broadcasting service. Why
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting then would the federal government get equipment for educational broadcasting if it has no intention of using it?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I rise again on a point of order.
I repeat that the federal government has no intention of interfering in the field of education, which is exclusively provincial. Subclause (i) reads as follows:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
If we recall recent interventions of the hon. member for Lapointe on the words "should" and "shall" I think he should take into consideration what is written, and not make a speech on education.
On the other hand, broadcasting is a field of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Then, anything which may happen in the field of educational television within the provinces should become the subject of an agreement with the federal government, since broadcasting comes exclusively under federal jurisdiction.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I believe, that this house is wasting its time when it discusses education with regard to facilities for educational broadcasting.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the house is not wasting its time unless the matter is badly explained. The parliamentary secretary stated that broadcasting comes under federal jurisdiction. He also added that education is under provincial jurisdiction.
Now, when the British North America Act was drafted, there was no radio nor television. But nevertheless, there were educational systems. However, they decided that the field of education was exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. The word "exclusively" is clearly mentioned.
Now the parliamentary secretary stands up and tells us that, in order to have educational programs, an agreement between the federal and provincial governments is necessary. If an agreement is necessary, then we cannot speak of the matter being exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.
The parliamentary secretary says that an agreement is necessary because broadcasting comes under federal jurisdiction. Let us admit that broadcasting comes under federal jurisdiction; there is nothing to prevent educational television programs now broadcast in the area of Saguenay-Lake St. Jean, to be
6146	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting broadcast following an agreement with the federal government.
What happens is this: the Quebec government has rented some equipment so as to prepare school films, which are shown on television through private stations, for an hour in the morning and at night, at a given time. Such initiative did not require any agreement between the federal and the provincial government because the latter does not have to conclude an agreement with the Ottawa government with regard to education.
The provincial government had the right to reserve periods of time with the private stations in Quebec, and it did so, and no agreement with federal government is required.
In the light of the proposed paragraph-the parliamentary secretary points out that it says "should" and not "shall", and that therefore there is no obligation-however, it must be recognized that the word "should" and not "shall" is found all through the clause. In fact, paragraph (b) reads as follows:
-that the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It does not say "shall". All through that clause which includes about ten paragraphs, we can read "it should be this way", and not necessarily "it shall be this way". The word "should" is always used. It is clumsy from start to finish. It is with "should"s that, at one point, thanks to precedents, the whole thing becomes "shall". You say: It is not compulsory, but the system should be equipped for educational broadcasting. Will you have me believe that the C.B.C. will not do something about that? Not at all. The C.B.C. will have its own educational broadcasts and school programs, unless the hon. Secretary of State can explain things otherwise for that is what I read in this paragraph. If there is another explanation, perhaps the hon. Secretary of State can clarify the meaning of that clause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to ask him a question. Does he understand that the word "system" in this subclause and throughout the bill does not mean the C.B.C. but rather refers to both the public and private sectors?


Gilles Grégoire: Let us grant it may be public and private. I cannot see very well how private television could afford the equipment for educational purposes, when these are non

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
profitable and cannot be sold. The government does not sell commercials-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Did my hon. friend not just tell us that there are pilot projects in the province of Quebec in the private sector of broadcasting? How else does he think there can be such pilot projects unless there are facilities for them?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, some educational television programs are shown in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area; it is a pilot project. Why? For two reasons. The first is that Quebec has acquired the facilities required to make excellent educational films. The second is that the Quebec government has bought time from television stations. But private stations do not have any facilities for educational programs; it is not up to private stations to pay for the broadcasting of educational programs. Education does not come under the jurisdiction of private stations but of the Quebec department of education. Private stations will not acquire all the facilities required for educational programs, because they are costly and do not pay.
Who, then, will have the facilities for educational broadcasting? The hon. Secretary of State says that these facilities will be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system. But we know very well that, in the final analysis, this means the C.B.C. The public broadcasting system is the one which will have these facilities, because it is financed by the federal government using taxes paid by the whole Canadian people. When the public broadcasting system has these facilities, it will be a crown corporation, a federal body and will produce its own educational programs.
This is contrary to the constitution and provides for duplication in the use of public funds, since the provinces have begun to acquire these facilities and are sponsoring pilot programs, experimenting and developing educational television.
Why such a duplication of public funds? Why should we pay taxes to the provincial government and the federal government, for something that is needed but once, that is one set only of facilities for educational broadcasting?
January 30, 1968

That is what I do not understand in the argument of the hon. minister and her parliamentary secretary. I wonder why they insist so much on including those words. The minister suggests that it does not necessarily imply the C.B.C., but rather the Canadian broadcasting system. However, it is not the broadcasting system that is going to buy what is needed for televised lectures, but rather the department of education of the province of Quebec, just as in Ontario it is the department of education which already presents such lectures-I have seen some here, on Ottawa television, in both French and in English.
But those programs are prepared by the Ontario or the Quebec department of education and that is normal. If, the Quebec government wants to rent periods of time from private stations, it is quite free to do so, because nothing compels it to enter into an agreement with the federal government under the pretext that broadcasting is a federal jurisdiction. It can deal directly with the private stations for these courses; it is as simple as that.
That is why I claim that this clause should not exist. First, because education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction and secondly, because the departments of education in the various provinces have already taken action to acquire-


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, again and for the last time, because such a discussion should not be allowed to drag on, something that could easily happen with the hon. member for Lapointe.
I feel that the hon. member for Lapointe is intelligent. He understands very well what paragraph (i) is all about, but to serve his own selfish political ends, he goes on and on about the interference of the federal government in the field of education, which is not the case here. In fact, the whole thing is about technical broadcasting facilities, a matter that comes under federal jurisdiction.
The hon. member said earlier that when the Canadian constitution was written, television did not exist. Many things did not exist then. But today if the provinces want to use those very efficient information media, television or radio, for educational purposes, that paragraph must be included in the act, because broadcasting is a matter of federal jurisdiction.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Then, Mr. Chairman, I think that to settle the matter, we should put this clause to a vote and see the result.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order-


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, I should like just like to ask the parliamentary secretary-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the point of order-


Gilles Grégoire: Questions are not asked on a point of order.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon.
member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has the floor on the point of order.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has just referred to technical equipment and means used to broadcast educational programs.
I wonder if it would not be more simple to alter subclause (i) which reads as follows:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting:
And to substitute therefor:
-that the Canadian broadcasting system should be in a position to broadcast educational programs.
We would then provide it with the necessary technical tool to broadcast such programs.
This is what I am inquiring about.


Gilles Grégoire: Of course, in that case it would not be the same any more. When clause 2 (i) refers to:
-educational broadcasting facilities-
This means the facilities for the production of the courses it has in views and not necessarily the facilities to broadcast the program. Facilities for broadcasting, namely television and radio stations, already exist.
What we want to-day are facilities to produce films or courses. But this does not fall within the province of the federal government. Anybody can set up a studio and produce educational films, without any authorization being necessary from the federal government. It is the broadcasting station which is within the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the facilities for the production of courses.
6148	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
To prepare a course is not to broadcast it. Now, when the course is produced, when the equipment has been used to produce a film, then it has to be broadcast, and since education comes under provincial authorities, the Quebec department of education can rent periods of time with the C.B.C., which is a federal agency. If Quebec rents periods of time with private stations, it deals with those private stations which receive their licence from the federal government. The equipment to produce the films and the courses, that is what makes the broadcasting of education possible, in short the elaboration of a program and not the broadcasting on the air, does not come under federal jurisdiction.
That is why I propose to that clause 1-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Villeneuve on a point of order.


Mr. Caoueile:: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not on a point of order but on the clause now under consideration, paragraph (i)-


Auguste Choquette: The word clause in French is not correct.


David Réal Caouette: On paragraph (i). We can see that the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just returned from France.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a storm in a tea cup. The question here concerns simply the definition or use of certain terms, which seems to worry the hon. member for Lapointe and the parliamentary secretary. They both said earlier that the paragraph says:
-facilities should be provided-
Instead of "shall be provided".
However, "should" always becomes "shall" and there is no great difference between the two.
*-should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that this new legislation, Bill No. C-163, does not only affect one province, but the whole of Canada. It is not stipulated here that the C.B.C.-if that is the case, and I think it is-will broadcast educational programs according to the standards or the rules laid down by the federal parliament.
Now, I admit that after the words:
-facilities ... for educational broadcasting.
The words: "in order to meet the needs of the provinces" could have been added.
Even if we recognize that some provinces now have broadcasting facilities, most of
[Mr. Gregoire.l
DEBATES	January 30, 1968
them do not. I rather think that if the C.B.C. is getting facilities for educational broadcasting, it is not so much to enter into the field of education but rather to serve the provinces.
If the C.B.C. were to undertake educational broadcasting on a national scale, then each of the provinces would be free and have the right to object to the interference of the C.B.C. or a crown corporation in a field over which it has exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is my opinion. It seems to me that we must end that storm in a teapot.
I do not believe for a moment that the C.B.C. is getting educational television facilities which could be used in Quebec to serve all the provinces. We are told about an experiment taking place in the Lake St. John district, but it has not been tried yet in Abitibi, in the eastern townships, in Sherbrooke or in the Quebec area. A pilot projet is under way in the Lake St. John-Saguenay area.
If the C.B.C. had the necessary facilities for educational broadcasting, I think that the province of Quebec could use it freely to promote education within its own territory. The same thing could happen in Ontario and in other provinces which do not have at the present time facilities for educational broadcasting.
Mr. Chairman, I believe sincerely that if we agree that broadcasting comes under the federal government, nothing prevents the latter from having full educational broadcasting facilities without being accused of getting into the field of education. On the other hand, if the federal government does not have the right to dispense education, it certainly has the right, for instance, to get such facilities and to put them at the disposal of the provinces to allow them to elaborate an educational broadcasting system that suits them. That is how I understand the meaning of that paragraph (i).
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. member for Bonaventure was not called to order under standing order 35 when he referred to the hon. member for Lapointe as having spoken on this clause from an egotistical standpoint only. I am opposed to this clause and if the hon. member for Bonaventure wishes to state that I am speaking from an egotistical standpoint I am going to ask the Chair for a ruling under standing order 35.
January 30, 1968


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, I paused to look more closely at clause 2(i). The wording of this clause, as some hon. members said, gives rise to confusion. In fact, it reads as follows:
____facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting :
If I am not mistaken, this clause opens wide the doors to infiltration by the C.B.C. in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That does not mean that the C.B.C. would use this clause to get equipment for educational broadcasting as is stipulated, because even if this clause is merely declaratory, it gives the C.B.C. the opportunity to enter into this field. It is not necessary to speak at great length. Several hon. members mentioned, and rightly so, that education is of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
We notice now that Quebec and the other provinces are anxious to organize their own network of educational television, in the interests of their taxpayers, because they want to preserve at all costs a jurisdiction exclusively theirs. If the C.B.C. decides to get equipment for educational broadcasting, I think it is simply to rent it to provinces which could use it. That is why, I think, I agree with the statement made a moment ago by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who said that a few words might be added to that subclause to clarify it, because it is too ambiguous. The C.B.C. should not be charged with trying to interfere in that field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I am of the opinion that the following words could be added at the end of this paragraph:
-to serve the provinces.
If it were provided that this should exclusively serve the provinces, it might to my mind, clarify the clause and thus certainly prevent some members from accusing the C.B.C. of trying to interfere in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
So, if the Secretry of State (Miss LaMarsh) would clarify the paragraph, she need only add at the end the words I just suggested: "to serve the provinces."

DEBATES	January 30, 1968


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I have the feeling that we are now discussing something that should be considered later before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. What we are doing is discussing the contents of a clause that defines no contents, which intentionally does not define the contents, so as to avoid constitutional problems at this stage of the discussion.
I was listening a while ago to the member for Lapointe and I think it might be wise to avoid discussion of this type because he was giving us a constitutional interpretation under which, for instance, since the Canadian National Railways are under the federal government, if educators from the province of Quebec were to travel on these train, it would amount to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec in matters of education. If this argument is pushed to its limit, to its logical conclusion, that is where we would arrive.
At the present time, what precisely is the question? The only thing involved are technical facilities for educational broadcasting. What type of equipment, what role it will play, who will use it and how? This is exactly the discussion which must take place in the committee on broadcasting films and assistance to the arts. We will surely have the opportunity to discuss all this, and all members of the house who are concerned with this-as I am-will have the opportunity to state this concern exactly and put some contents in this clause.
So I think that this discussion is premature. Furthermore, it is also erroneous because it leads us into the wrong path from which we will not be able to free ourselves, since there is no question at the present time of defining this clause. It is simply a matter of stating that, in our Canadian broadcasting system, which as the Secretary of State mentioned, refers to the whole Canadian broadcasting apparatus, there should be provided facilities for educational broadcasting. This does not prejudge in the least the users of such facilities or all the constitutional arrangements to be taken by the governments, as the parliamentary secretary has just pointed out.
If conclusions are to be drawn, the only one that can be is that, of course, the provinces will have to use those facilities, since education is involved. I therefore submit that we are now discussing prematurely a matter which is supposed to be debated later at a predetermined date.
January 30, 1968	COMMONS
I would therefore ask the members who wish to speed up the business of the house to enable us to pass this extremely important piece of legislation as soon as possible, and to postpone this discussion for the time being, not that it is unjustified, on the contrary, but because I feel it is improper at this stage of the discussion of the bill before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would be ready to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier). He admits that the clause is not precise, that its contents is not definite and vague and he asks us to postpone the debate to a date which has already been set. I would agree with him, provided that passage of this clause shall also be postponed to that date.
If the hon. member for Hochelaga accepts the proposal for postponement of passage of this clause following the discussion in committee, I fully agree with him.
Evidently at that time, the debate will be better prepared. During consideration in committee, this clause will be clarified. But he admits that the clause is not precise, that it is vague and indefinite.
On the other hand, we are asked to pass it as is, and we are told that it will be debated later on. I believe we should first debate it, define its wording, and clarify its meaning before passing it. If a debate on this matter is anticipated, why not delay the passing of this clause until the end of the debate in committee, which seems to me would be the normal process?
Would the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State be ready to accept that, since there is going to be a debate in order to define and specify the meaning of this clause? Would not the hon. parliamentary secretary be prepared, as suggested by the hon. member for Hochelaga, to postpone the debate as well as the passing of this clause?


Albert Béchard: Postpone the debate, very well, but we are now discussing the Broadcasting Act and since educational broadcasting will necessarily be using airwaves, since radio or television is concerned here-the clause before us merely provides the use of television for educational purposes, under the authority which will be established later on during the discussion of this bill.
DEBATES	6151
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Once again, it is not a question of studying education or educational television. It is merely a question of placing under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television Council that agency which later on will be entrusted by another bill with all the questions pertaining to educational television once the matter has been studied by the committee to which it will be deferred. The member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) can then participate in the discussions and he will soon have the opportunity of doing so. That is the object the legislator has in mind by introducing paragraph (i) in the Broadcasting Act.


Gilles Grégoire: That is precisely what I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we are asked to accept a vague principle, on which we are not too clear; later on that principle is destroyed. If the definition and the standards of the principle are not acceptable, we will then be told: The principle of educational television has already been accepted in Bill No. C-163.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said a while ago: If Ottawa wants to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction, let the provinces protest.
Well, we have direct interference here.
The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) expressed his fears in the face of that interference. But if we accept the principle of interference, it will then be far more difficult to force retreat. We all know that is the way it goes: First you open the door, and once it is open, it is easy to go in.
The hon. member for Villeneuve argued that if the C.B.C. had been in charge of the school television project, the whole region would probably have benefited therefrom. But when the C.B.C. or the federal government make an experiment, they do it on a regional scale because experimenting, broadcasting programs is not everything. Quebec, in its pilot project, is not only broadcasting programs: a staff of research assistants contact the students-30,000 persons are enrolled in these televised courses-in order to learn how well the lectures have been received and how to improve them according to the results on these 30,000 persons.
6152	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Such an experiment, covering the whole of Quebec, would not have met with so much success, since the results of the courses could not have been analysed in depth.
Of course, the Quebec government could have extended the courses through all the private stations in the province, but it did not do so, because it preferred to have the experiment limited to one small area, in order to learn what effect it had on the people following the courses. There are hundreds of teachers who meet with some of the individuals attending the lectures on television, so as to be able to measure the rate of progress.
That is the reason why I say it is not because the C.B.C. would have been in charge of these courses that the experiment would have been carried out throughout the province. The Quebec government could also have extended the courses throughout the province, but if it has limited them to one area only, it is precisely because the project is still at the experimental stage and results are unknown. To know, the people attending the lectures must be interviewed, and the experiment must be limited to a region in order to be profitable.
We are told that the provinces can oppose, if it cares to, the C.B.C. stepping into the private sector. But once it has started something, it is much more difficult to make the federal government back down.
If the C.B.C. gets into the field of education, people will say: The airwaves come under federal jurisdiction. That is true, but what sort of education will then be provided? Will people perhaps be taught how to use LSD? That is the sort of education which one could expect these courses to provide.
Would it not be more reasonable to leave this matter in the hands of the authority which is truly responsible for education, that is, the department of education of the province of Quebec?
I agree with the hon. member for Hoch-elaga (Mr. Pelletier) who says that this is indefinite, vague, equivocal. Since the hon. member for Hochelaga tells us that the matter will be studied later, I am glad, but I would answer that we should at least wait until we have studied the matter before we adopt this clause.
The hon. member for Charlevoix said, quite rightly, that this opens a door. Of course it opens a door. And when the door is open, it is much more difficult to close it, because the federal government does not abandon an area

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
once it has entered into it; it stays there instead.
In the case of hospital insurance, it was said that health came under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government interfered in that field and it was said: Those who do not want hospital insurance are not forced to take it. However, the federal government passed it with this comment: The provinces are not doing anything about it.
In this case, the provinces have started to do something about it. They have arrived at the stage preceding that which the federal government is about to undertake, that is the stage of experimentation and pilot projects.
Now that hospital insurance has been passed, we are taxed to pay for it and even if the province does not want it, we are still taxed. If Quebec, which already has its school television project, does not want that of the federal government, it will still have to pay taxes for it. We are always treated in the same way.
The Quebec premier said that he did not
want the hospital insurance, for the time being, but the Quebec people will still pay taxes for that insurance which will be implemented in other provinces. Do you think that the federal government-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Ontario too.


Gilles Grégoire: But Ontario has no more sense, because the reason it has given is that it would not be normal for other provinces to pay taxes-


Albert Béchard: When citizens are sick, is it not Mr. Johnson who pays the bills?


Gilles Grégoire: Organize another monetary system. Maybe the provinces will then have money to pay for those who are sick. It is our system that is sick, and the individuals cannot be treated as they would like to be.


David Réal Caouette: Nobody introduces programs to take care of that system.


Gilles Grégoire: Nobody introduces any
remedy to cure the system that is sick.
Instead of taking care of problems that come directly under provincial jurisdiction, why is the federal government not taking its responsibilities in the areas that are within its jurisdiction?
Unemployment is increasing, for instance. That problem is a federal matter. Why not
January 30, 1968	COMMONS
spend the money of the federal government to fight unemployment? When the provinces are already spending money for education in schools, why does the federal government also get into that field? We pay twice for the same thing. That is what bowls me over, that is what I do not understand: Always spend money twice to achieve only one result.
Even if there are two sets of educational broadcasting facilities, there will be only one series of courses. But money will have been spent twice. We always pay twice to achieve only one result.
I am saying that the federal government is interfering in a field of provincial jurisdiction. I am more afraid than the hon. member for Villeneuve who says that the provinces have only to protest and to object to that. I think that the experience of the past proves that even when the provinces protest, the federal government does not step back.
That is probably the reason why the provinces decided some time ago not to withdraw when they encroach upon fields of federal jurisdiction. When the Quebec government was directly invited to attend a conference on education in Gabon, the federal government protested saying that that was its jurisdiction. But the provincial government did not withdraw. Why? Because the federal government never moves back when it interferes in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. And education is of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I would be quite happy to see the hon. member for Villeneuve support that principle of the constitution which is one of the guarantees of Quebec rights.
If this bill is passed, it will be exactly the twentieth which will sanction the direct or indirect, and more often indirect interference of the federal government in the field of education, because the federal government comes in by the back door and never by the front door, when it interferes in the field of education.
It is exactly the twentieth bill of that kind and every year, others are added, so that before long the federal government will be controlling the educational system in Quebec.
I would rather see the hon. member for Villeneuve support me and try to defend the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. I would not say this, if Quebec were inactive,
DEBATES	6153
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting because something must be done in that field. But Quebec has been acting and is far ahead of the federal government. Why should we not stubbornly defend one of the jurisdictions which still belong to the province of Quebec? Why not defend such jurisdiction? Education is one of the most important fields and the hon. member for Charlevoix rightly expressed his concern before that new intrusion of the federal government in a field of provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Hochelaga said so: it is indefinite, vague, nebulous, but we shall discuss it later on; let us accept this bill, even if it is vague and indefinite.


Albert Béchard: He never said that.


Gilles Grégoire: It amounted to the same thing. The hon. member for Hochelaga said: Let us accept this clause and, later on, something has been anticipated in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, as regards the study of educational broadcasting.
Before accepting the principle, let us see what it involves. The clause is far from precise. It may lead to all kinds of interpretations and, if passed, it can allow for an almost unlimited intrusion on the part of the federal government in the field of education. Let us see what it says.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is simple, I mean brief. It does not say much but it opens all the doors. It says the following:
-facilities should he provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
It is as simple as that, but it keeps many doors open. That is why I am firmly opposed to this paragraph.


Martial Asselin: Does the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State not deem it advisable to add, at the end of the paragraph, the words I mentioned earlier
to the effect that the educational broadcasting facilities should be used by the provinces, or something of the kind, so as to clarify, as suggested earlier by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), that clause which is not quite clear?
The parliamentary secretary himself admits that those educational broadcasting facilities
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting will meet the needs of the provinces. Then, why not add those five words to clause 2(i)? I feel this would clarify and simplify a paragraph that I find vague and which encourages the intrusion of the federal government in the field of education.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Charlevoix, in spite of his good intentions, is unacceptable. As a matter of fact, not only the provinces are involved, since it could be a provincial organization rather than merely a province.


Martial Asselin: If it is an organization within a province, the federal government cannot stick its nose into it; it is up to the province to legislate on educational matters.


Albert Béchard: There is no question of sticking our nose into education. It has been said since the start that education is not involved. The point is to provide the provinces with technical facilities for broadcasting and television. That is why it is said that this discussion is somewhat premature.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I simply want to make a few remarks.
I support to a large extent the suggestions of the member for Lapointe. The paragraph under consideration does not comply with provincial jurisdiction from the constitutional viewpoint and furthermore it is far from clear. For these reasons, I think the committee should withdraw this paragraph and bring it down later after consideration by the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. Many people have made this suggestion which I strongly support.
To my mind, this is not clear and might be misinterpreted. It is so confused that it is impossible to draw clear conclusions from it.
Then, since it lends to confusion, it is absolutely necessary that this clause be withdrawn and considered further. Therefore, with the consent of the house, I would ask the committee to withdraw it and give it further consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State just made a remark that leaves me sceptical. The hon. member for Charlevoix is asking the

parliamentary secretary if he could not add, at the end of sub clause (i), the following words: "for the needs of the provinces".
This means that the facilities would be used for the provinces' needs. The parliamentary secretary rises and says: "We cannot mention that, in case there would be an organization or another group."
Therefore, an association could use that educational broadcasting equipment, without the knowledge of the provinces, to broadcast school courses. That is what I think I understood from the answer given by the parliamentary secretary. It is what the hon. member for Charlevoix also seems to have understood.
Then, think about the tremendous power of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has a whole educational broadcasting equipment. A group, let say the Canadian Association for the Education of French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians comes up to the body which owns that educational broadcasting equipment and says: Our group would like to use your equipment to give some courses. The federal government is free to decide whether or not it will make its equipment available to that group. Just before that answer, the Secretary of State had been more cautious; she was careful not to give that answer. In fact, she did not mention that possibility.
Does that mean that the equipment may be made available to any group which would like to use it? Would the hon. parliamentary secretary clarify his thinking on that? Could the equipment be made available to any association? Is that what the parliamentary secretary means?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member will have to wait to see the draft bill. Then we will be in a position to hear from a number of groups. My hon. friend obviously knows absolutely nothing about what is going on in this field outside the province of Quebec. In most of the other provinces there are very active organizations which are most anxious to use any facilities which might be available. Of course, matters which are extracurricular would have to be dealt with by the provinces but there may be
January 30, 1968

things which are not extracurricular because this provision applies to teenagers and adults in many fields. There are many parts of the federal government which are responsible for education. As you know, the federal government is responsible for the education of Eskimos and, in some instances, for the education of Indians. There is also the matter of education with regard to re-employment and retraining. A great many departments of government will be interested and have already indicated their interest in using the facilities when they are available in furtherance of their responsibilities, not in furtherance of education as it exists under provincial jurisdiction.
There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of questions to be answered in the whole field of educational television in Canada before any facilities are built. These facilities will be enormously expensive. The committee will have to delve into this matter very deeply. If my hon. friend really is interested in educational television, one way in which he can find out more about it is to assist in the passage of this legislation. The chairman of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts has had to postpone the hearings on educational television until the committee of the whole has dealt with this legislation because the members of the committee cannot be in two places at the same tune. All I can say to my hon. friend is that if we want to have school or adult educational broadcasts we must have the facilities with which to do this. All that this part of clause 2 says is that those facilities, wherever they are and whatever is broadcast over them, will have to be a part of the broadcasting system of Canada. I am sure my hon. friend does not disagree with this.
My hon. friend has been occupying the time of the committee now for almost an hour and a half on something which really depends on the legislation as it finally comes to the house after the subject of educational television has been considered by the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, those are exactly the answers which I find alarming. The minister just told us that there will not only be an educational television, but also Departments of Education, groups and federal departments which could use educational
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting television, in short, groups which never have any educational jurisdiction. The minister states that there are hundreds of ways to use educational broadcasting equipment. But she does not specify them. We are told that some decision will be taken later. We are asked to approve that principle immediately even though later its terms may be completely disastrous. The minister pointed out that the discussion has been going on for 1| hours. But 1J hours, before such an important intrusion by the federal government in the educational field, is not long. Indeed, the objection should be much more extended and be accepted by the minister.
The hon. minister wants to expedite the work. I shall ask her whether she would agree to suspend consideration of subclause (i) until 8 p.m., to give me an opportunity to draft an amendment more in line with what the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. La-niel) were suggesting earlier. Would the hon. minister be agreeable to suspending the consideration of subclause (i) until 8 P.M., so that I may draft a satisfactory amendment?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think my hon. friend is displaying quite a bit of temerity in asking me to co-operate with him in any way.
The Assisianl Deputy Chairman: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause (i) carry?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause (i) carry on division?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we vote on clause 2 (i).

Subclause (i) of clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 49; nays, 11.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the subclause carried. We will now proceed to subclause (j).
6156	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time the attitude of the C.B.C. was changed. In most instances the man who pays the bills calls the shots. If any control is ever going to be exercised over the expensive top-heavy bureaucracy it must come from this chamber.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How?


Percy Verner Noble: 
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee will now revert to clause 2 (h). Shall subclause (h) carry?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to move an amendment to this subclause. Without speaking at tedious length on the reasons therefor, I thank the minister for having stood this clause yesterday and giving me an opportunity to speak to the clause and move my amendment today. I told the committee that I intended to move an amendment
January 30, 1968	COMMONS
to this subclause because I am unhappy with the authoritarian and arbitrary type of permanent decision the present wording would seem to make where disputes between private broadcasters and the national service, the C.B.C., are concerned. My amendment is:
That In subclause (h) of clause 2 all the words after the word "system" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: "the public interest must prevail".
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the subclause, if amended along the lines I have suggested, would read as follows:
(h) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the public interest must prevail.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
My reasons for suggesting this amendment were expressed in the debate on December 21 and I have made reference to them on the two or three occasions when I have spoken during the clause by clause examination of the legislation in the past week and a half. My reasons are that the clause as worded at the present time lays down a rigid, codified decision of a permanent nature from which there is no appeal and no escape. I envision a situation where possibly two, three or four years from now, some time in the future when all the innuendoes and philosophizing in this debate have been concluded, when the legislation is written into the statute books and becomes the code under which the broadcasting authorities, administrators and operators in this country carry out their function, a dispute might arise over a given broadcasting prize, whether it be a channel, a frequency, a type of program or an event available for transmission. In such a case the authority- the B.B.G. or the Canadian television commission as it may become known-would have one firm guide line under which to act and there would be no opportunity for the private operator to have his case fairly heard.
I say that because I think any honest and conscientious examination of the wording will lead all hon. members to the same conclusion. On looking at these words one finds that the proposed legislation stipulates that where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service, that is, the C.B.C., and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail. These objectives can cover a wide variety of interests, plans, hopes, dreams and aspirations.
DEBATES	6159
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The word "objectives" is most ambiguous, far reaching and all embracing. It is open to many interpretations. It is possible, as I suggested, that the objective of the C.B.C. might be to obtain a certain channel, frequency or access to the coverage of an event. I believe that this type of objective was not envisaged by those who drafted the legislation. The framers of the legislation and those of us who were exposed to the wording in the standing committee on broadcasting had a more abstract and perhaps a more esoteric idea of the objectives. But the fact is that in the harsh light of dawn and under the harsh light of examination by members of this committee the term as it stands in the proposed legislation is fraught with difficulties and dangers so far as the freedom of the Canadian society in the future is concerned.
The amendment I propose eliminates the danger of authoritarian permanency which is contained in the original wording and provides that where such a conflict arises the public interest must prevail. I suggest that this in an entirely acceptable position to all members of the house regardless of their political persuasion, regardless of their partisanship on the question of broadcasting, and regardless of whether they favour public over private broadcasting or vice-versa. It is the public interest that is important, not the interests of the national broadcasting service or its objectives, nor the interests of private broadcasters or their objectives.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave):
That in subclause (h) of clause 2 all the words after the word "system" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: "the public interest must prevail;"


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two on this amendment. I agree substantially with what the hon. member for Winnipeg South has said. There are two other words in the clause that I do not like. I do not like the word "objectives" in so far as it relates to the national broadcasting service, the C.B.C., and I do not like the word "interests" in so far as it is applied to the private sector. My reason for saying that is that the clause as it stands says in effect that the C.B.C. will always have its way and that the will of the C.B.C. will always prevail. In the clause as it now stands we are comparing objectives on the one hand and interests on the other. Surely we should be comparing
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting objectives with objectives, or interests with interests, and not clothing the plans of the C.B.C. in the best possible raiment by using the word "objectives" and downgrading the plans and intentions of the private sector by calling them merely "interests".
We have been told that the broadcasting system in Canada is made up of two substantial sectors, the public sector and the private sector, and that both are in many ways equally important. My understanding is that in terms of capital investment or employment they are comparable in size and are doing a comparable job for the country. Therefore in this respect both merit consideration. In other words, the terms of reference given to the over-all broadcasting authority which should arbitrate between them should a conflict arise should not be such as to load the dice heavily in favour of one sector. I suggest that under the present wording the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the national broadcasting service.
I suggest also that the clause as it stands downgrades the powers of the over-all regulatory authority. If the objectives of the national broadcasting service must always prevail against the private interests, then surely many cases can be settled out of court without any argument. Surely the C.B.C. will have little difficulty in proving its case. All it needs to say is that its plans are consistent with its objectives and then in effect it is home free. Rarely will it say that its plans are in fact in conflict with its objectives.
I can imagine cases such as the following. Let us assume that the C.T.Y. network has lined up the Grey cup game, as I believe it has in fact done for the next period of years in a contractual arrangement with the Canadian football league, and the national broadcasting service comes along as it did some years back, and says that it wants a piece of the Grey cup broadcast. All it needs to do is to point to one of those wonderful objectives which are outlined in subclause (g), that of covering most or all of Canada, and it is home free.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Its objective of covering all of Canada is consistent with its plan to get the Grey cup broadcast, or vice-versa. This plan is consistent with one of these great objectives.
I would much rather see this clause provide that when there is a conflict between the national broadcasting service and the private sector the issue be resolved by the over-all

authority and that the criteria be the public interest. I do not like the word "objectives" and I do not like the word "interests". I do not like the way one is attached to the national broadcasting service and the other to the private sector to the detriment of the latter. I would support the amendment as it has been put forward and I would certainly like to see the words "objectives" and "interests" struck out of this clause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: concluding paragraph of the report on the white paper on broadcasting, over the signature of the hon. member of York-Scarbor-ough, presented on March 21, 1967, reads:
We express our conviction that the primacy of the public sector should be the paramount and continuing objective of the new legislation; that we must make more effective, and not undermine the main instrument by which "national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
The committee, as I say, repeatedly underlined the fact it felt there was a position of primacy for the C.B.C. While I do not believe I have ever told a joke before in the House of Commons, this decision which members took reminds me of an old story I heard about a man who had been married twice. His first wife was named Matilda and she died and was buried. When the old man was dying he was asked about the place of his burial. His second wife's name was Bertha. The old man said, ''When I die, bury me between Matilda and Bertha". He thought for a while and then he said, "Tilt me a little toward Bertha". It seems to me that really is what parliament wants us to do. If there is a primacy as between the private and public sectors, parliament feels it should be given to the instrument of the people of Canada in broadcasting, the public sector.
This clause does not say, nor is it intended to say, that when the interests of the private sector are opposed to the interests of the public sector the interests of the public sector shall hold sway. If it said that I would agree with hon. members that it would intend that the C.B.C., whenever it came into conflict with private broadcasters, must win. This is not the case. It is the objectives this parliament has laid down which must be paramount. Otherwise you would have a situation where the B.B.G., or whatever the new regulatory body is, would be put in the position that it would have to try to hold the C.B.C. paramount over the interests of the private broadcasters. I do not believe anyone really means to argue that.
I cannot, therefore, agree with the amendment which is offered nor with those who support it from this side. I should like to say that it is quite clear what would happen if you oppose interests and interests, but you must realize that is not what is being done here. It is not intended that the C.B.C. shall, wherever it finds itself in a conflict such as the one cited by my hon. friend from Vancouver, automatically win. It is only where
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the objectives are in conflict that the public service must be upheld.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to what the minister has said. In spite of the reference she made to the report of the broadcasting committee it seems to me she has missed entirely the over-all objective of this bill. This bill is not intended merely to outline the objectives of the C.B.C., the public broadcasting service, but is intended to outline general responsibilities in the entire area of broadcasting. I agree that subclause (g) spells out the objectives of the C.B.C. There is nothing in this bill, and I do not believe there should be anything in it, stating that these are the only objectives. Surely the bill, as its title, the Broadcasting Act, implies, is intended to outline the general responsibilities in the field of broadcasting. The bill does specify certain objectives as the intended objectives of the public broadcasting service, but it is wrong to say that the private sector does not have objectives, that it only has interests.
The reasons the hon. lady advanced in answer to the arguments of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano seem to me, therefore, to be entirely irrelevant to the points with which we are dealing in this subclause. I found myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, and that is why I intend to support the amendment. I regret that the amendment does not go farther than it does. I regret also that the hon. member did not move his suggested amendment to the amendment because I think it is more inclusive and expresses in a more effective way the objective of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Whether we are placing interests against interests or objectives against objectives, in my opinion this clause is intended to mean that where any conflict arises between the public broadcasting system on the one hand and the private sector on the other the overriding consideration is to meet the public need. I think this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South was trying to say. We are not attempting to favour the public broadcasting system.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think it is entirely wrong to say that we have to tilt this legislation toward the one and away from the other. The legislation must be fair when conflicts arise and if there is any tilt it should be toward the public interest and not the public broadcasting service. Although the argument of the minister
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting may have some basis if it is considered that the purpose of this subclause is to tilt the legislation toward the public broadcasting service, nevertheless I contend that this approach is wrong. It is the general public interest that must be the deciding factor and therefore this subclause should be rephrased.
I hope that the hon. member for Winnipeg South will make his amendment a little more inclusive by amending the wording. If this is not possible, Mr. Chairman, when we have disposed of the amendment there should be a further amendment expressing the thoughts presented by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, the explanation of the minister is most helpful but it does seem to me that some steps should be taken to clarify the meaning of this subclause. Subclause (h) provides:
(h) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service-
That means the C.B.C.
-and the interests of the private element-
The private stations.
-of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail;
This could mean that in the event of a conflict between the state-owned C.B.C. and the private stations it must be resolved in the interests of the state-owned C.B.C. This does not make any sense at all to me. Generally speaking, we in Canada, tend to have mixed systems. For example, in the transportation field we have the state-owned Canadian National Railways and the privately owned Canadian Pacific Railway. It would be complete nonsense to me if we were to provide in the National Transportation act that in the event of a conflict between the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. the interests of the C.N.R. should automatically prevail. Yet this is what we seem to be saying in this subclause. At any rate, it might be interpreted in that way.
I would suggest to the minister if I may, Mr. Chairman, that the word "objectives" at least should be clarified. What is meant in this legislation by the reference to the objectives of the C.B.C.? Does it mean the objectives of the C.B.C. as set out in subclause (g) of clause 2? If so, why does it not say so? I suggest that such a change is the least that the minister should accept in the interest of clarifying the subclause and removing some of the fears which hon. members have about it.
During the course of this rather long debate many members have expressed concern about the type of programs that the C.B.C. has provided from time to time in the past. Personally I am inclined to think that their concern is not soundly based. I believe that the days of a free-wheeling C.B.C. are clearly over. The debate that has taken place in this house indicates that the free-wheeling C.B.C. of the past is dead and that in the future a much greater danger is that the C.B.C. will become the strong right arm of the state, with all the forebodings that that implies. Bolstered by large public revenues, immune from control by parliament, the C.B.C. could become in the future a danger to the public interest rather than a supporter of the public interest. In these circumstances the suggestion that this subclause should be amended in order to provide that where there is a conflict between the state-owned C.B.C. and the privately owned stations it should be resolved in the public interest should commend itself to members on this side of the house as well as to opposition members.
I urge the minister to reconsider the possibility of moving a very simple amendment to clarify, first, the meaning of the word "objectives" and, second, to make it entirely clear that there is to be no automatic resolution of any conflict in favour of the state-owned system but rather that the public interest will be the governing factor.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had made it perfectly clear that the latter was the case and also that the objectives were those in subclause (g) and those preceding it. It is very clear that these are the objectives that parliament has set for its servants.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment moved by my colleague. I went to the table and borrowed The Concise Oxford Dictionary in order to determine the difference between the word "objectives" and the word "interests". The minister is quite right when she says there is a difference in meaning, but I suggest that it is more a dictionary difference than one that has practical application here. The word "interest" in the particular context under debate means "Thing in which one is concerned", according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary. "Objective" means a "point aimed at".
In the practical context under discussion it is almost impossible to distinguish between what is an objective of the C.B.C. and what is an interest of the private element. This would

January 30, 1968

certainly be the case if both were to become engaged in a dispute about, for example, the issuance of a licence or who should carry the Grey cup broadcast or the like. I think that any lawyer who was trying to interpret this subclause would do his darndest to see that the point in dispute became an objective of the C.B.C. and an interest of the private element. In the event of a conflict-and the bill does say "where any conflict arises"-if he could label what the C.B.C. was after as an objective and what the private element was after as an interest he would have won the battle. Perforce the dispute must be decided in favour of the C.B.C.
I do not think that that is what we said in the report of the broadcasting committee. Surely that twists the intent of the language beyond all sensible meaning. I can see that in most cases, other things being equal, requests made by the public sector, the C.B.C., would receive the support of the Canadian RadioTelevision Council, and I would not object to that. But I would object if in any dispute that arose between the two sides the referee would invariably raise the hand of the C.B.C. aloft and say: The C.B.C. in this conflict is battling for objectives, the private station is battling for interests, and therefore I declare the C.B.C. the winner.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To those who are not taking part in this debate I suppose this argument is about as interesting as the medieval argument about how many angels could squat on the head of a pin. But, speaking practically, we are not getting anywhere by hair splitting or quibbling. I hope the committee will support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Perhaps hon. members may want to think about it and take another look at it over the supper break.
To repeat something I said earlier, suppose both sides in broadcasting, the C.B.C. and a private element, go after a station in Saskatoon or Moncton. The C.B.C. might say: To meet the objective of the national broadcasting system we should be given a station here. The C.T.V. people might say: We are interested in having a station and we think we should have it. Under subclause (h) the decision must go in favour of the C.B.C., although the C.B.C. may not have the money to build the station for years and years and years. At the same time someone with private capital lying around may be prepared to erect a station. What is the public interest then?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I suggest that the public interest can best be served by providing an alternate service for the people of cities that already have a single service. It will not be served by giving the right to build a station to the C.B.C., which may not have the money to do so for years and years and years, but by giving the right to erect a station to those who can make that station available immediately. I hope the minister will reconsider the matter and accept what I think is a sensible amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Before the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond interjects with his pointed remarks, to meet the point which has been raised, perhaps the amendment might be changed to read something like, "where any conflict arises between the public interest as determined by the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the public interest must prevail." In other words, that would pretty well define the public interest as being the objective here.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the minister suggesting that the words, "the public interest must prevail", should be inserted in the amendment?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was suggesting that the wording should be, "where any conflict arises between the public interest as determined by the objectives of the national broadcasting service", and so on, and that the last phrase on line 35 should be, "the public interest must prevail". I do not ask for comment now but I think we should think about this while listening to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the words of the subclause were inspired by a member of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Royal. As a member of the steering committee I can remember that the language of the subclause was largely inspired as a result of the work performed by the hon. member for Royal. I agreed with him and applauded him for the wording which he suggested in the steering committee. I am sorry he is not here today because no doubt he would make a statement defending the words which he suggested in the first place.
I agree with the Secretary of State that there should be tilt in favour of the public system. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said that private and public broadcasting in Canada are equally important. They are not
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting equally important so far as parliament is concerned, and that is evident from the bill.
In this bill clause 2(g) imposes a special responsibility on the national broadcasting service. If some of the arguments that have been put forward were adopted we would in fact be running counter to some of the arguments for national unity. That is a special charge imposed on the national broadcasting service. It must also extend broadcasting services to all parts of Canada, as clause 2 suggests, even where that may not be profitable. No one blames private broadcasters for not establishing stations where there is no market. But people in all parts of Canada should receive broadcasting services, whether or not those services are profitable, and in this bill we are talking about providing such a national broadcasting service in both langauges.
I am sure the hon. member for York-Humber will say there is no apparent market in Toronto for French broadcasting. The same holds true for Vancouver because there is no market there for a French station. Even though there is no market in the commercial sense, the public broadcasting service will extend its service to those areas. Through subclause (g) the national service is charged with a special responsibility to express the Canadian identity and to attempt to forge national unity. It seems to me clear that Mr. R. B. Bennett, in planning the public broadcasting service, intended that service to be the predominant service in the country. Parliament expects that service to be predominant. Almost every national organization, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Association of Consumers, has expressed this view when they have appeared before the broadcasting committee.
I take issue with what the hon. member for Winnipeg South suggests. There is nothing rigid about this provision. This clause is a preamble and declaration and I doubt that every word in it could be enforced in a court of law. Nevertheless it is a declaration of parliament and I think the wording should stand. I again remind members of the official opposition that it was their chief broadcasting critic, the hon. member for Royal, who moved the adoption of the wording we have now.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I found the lady minister's humour more acceptable than the change she suggested
[Mr. Prittie.l
with regard to the point brought to the committee's attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg South and amplified by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You did not laugh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, but I smiled. I did not write down the suggested change, but I do not think the wording corrects the situation. At first blush it appears to make it worse because you are defining the public interest and including words such as "shall be the objective of the national broadcasting service". It surprises me, as it has surprised many others here, that a government labelled as Liberal should advocate such a clause as this which is perhaps one of the most invidious in the bill in that as drafted it says that any conflict between public and private broadcasters shall be resolved in favour of the national broadcasting service.
I am also amazed that members of the N.D.P. should think the words and actions of Mr. R. B. Bennett are sacrosanct. Undoubtedly in the 1930's, when the national broadcasting service was radio only, the setting up of such a service was a tremendous accomplishment. The service has performed well. I have always been amazed that members to the left who profess to be so progressive, so go-go, so up to date with everything, whose ranks are joined in ever-increasing numbers by columnists and commentators who want to participate in politics, should go back to the thirties in their thinking and imagine that the thinking of the thirties can provide a cure for today and the future.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond in his usual way drew a red herring across our arguments. He said in effect that this clause contains only terms of reference. All I can say to that is that we have spent several days discussing these terms of reference. As the minister has said, this clause is the heart of the bill. Clause 2 is the guts of the bill, and while the subclause we are now considering, when passed, may not have the force of law, it certainly will contain terms of reference which will guide the new council.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Halifax suggested, there can be a considerable difference between one's interest and one's objective. Take the case of the unfortunate gentleman -perhaps fortunate, depending on how one views the state of matrimony-who had two wives. His objective was to be buried
January 30, 1968

between the two ladies. That was his objective. But he had an interest in being tilted toward one rather than the other. There is no doubt that the gentleman wanted to be buried between the two ladies, but he had a little more interest in one of them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But what was his objective?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: His objective was to be buried. Any activity after that was pretty Sterile.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then surely the hon. member realizes that his interest and his objective were the same.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let us say that any amorous objective had long ceased and expired.
Be that as it may, the story does illustrate the difficulty in trying to define an interest as apart from an objective. One could have an objective and at the same time have an interest which pursued that objective, but I do not know whether the reverse cannot be true. It occasionally happens that a phrase in French cannot be transcribed into English because of semantic difficulties. Here, in the English language, we find a paragraph which can only add to the difficulties of the council in any attempt it may make to distinguish between interest and objective, no matter what semblance of plausibility the minister may appear to give to the clause.
This is a key clause. The position taken by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, with all his eloquence and sincerity, confirms our belief that this is a fundamental concept. It does not matter greatly who drafted the provision or what has taken place since the committee hearings. I am completely opposed to a clause which, without further ado, would resolve matters completely in favour of the C.B.C. Even if the committee accepted the plausible explanation given by the minister in defining "interest" and "objective", the provisions as set out are so general as to encourage the council to decide automatically in favour of the pubic network.
We have gone far beyond Mr. Bennett and the thirties. For example, we have developed a modern transportation service, as the hon. member for St. Paul mentioned. Let us go out west to the region the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond comes from. No doubt he would tell us he would like to see one state-owned air service in Canada. Fortunately, not very long ago we had a progressive
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting government which did something about public transportation in the air and developed competition between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. I should like to hear the hon. members for Burnaby-Richmond, Burna-by-Coquitlam and New Westminster, who all come from the beautiful province of British Columbia where I was fortunate enough to practice law for several years, say in this house today that they do not like this development or that it has is not helped to improve Air Canada service as well as provide better service for the public.


An hon. Member:: And provide the biggest payrolls in British Columbia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is so. I know that birds flock to Victoria to a far greater extent than they do to Ottawa, but in any event I doubt that there is any wish to revert to the old transportation system and allow all questions to be resolved in favour of Air Canada. If this had been done there would today be no alternative air service over the Rocky Mountains.
As I say, we have advanced beyond the thirties. I was somewhat disappointed to hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond reverting to the thirties for his argument and trying to keep us in that period when we have progressed beyond it, notably with regard to the affairs of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. We have established the Canadian Transport Commission to resolve conflicts. Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines now supply alternative services, with the Canadian Transport Commission or the Air Transport Board ready to resolve differences.
Why, then, should there be so much hesitation about writing into the bill a provision such as we are suggesting? As things stand, with the prestige of the C.B.C. and the weight of public money flowing into that organization there would have to be a very strong case indeed before the council would fail to resolve in favour of the C.B.C. I say the effect will be to castrate the council. Why give powers to the council as is done under clause 16 unless room is given for the exercise of those powers and the reaching of a fair determination when conflicts arise?
For these reasons and many more which I could advance I hope the minister will reconsider the position she has taken. The amendments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South might, in my opinion, have included a few words to make it clearly

January 30, 1968
Private Bills
understood that when conflict does arise between the national system and the private system the interest of the public should prevail. I see nothing archaic or antediluvian about this or any bar to its adoption by the government which prides itself on traditional forms of Liberal philosophy. I think I shall now call it six o'clock.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member answer one question? I was sad to hear him say he was distressed by reference to the late R. B. Bennett. Has he made such violent objection on every occasion when his former leader went back a hundred years or so to Sir John Macdonald?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. lady cannot have heard me in many debates because today I was not really violent at all. My voice was just going up and down. It was simply that I was disappointed in the approach of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


The Chairman:: Order. It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Vocational Training -protest by students respecting living allowance; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act-Inquiry concerning statement by assistant deputy minister; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), Public Works-Vancouver-Construction of federal building.
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, public bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-105, to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation-Mr. Orange-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 7, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-Incorporation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, as you have
said, this matter was given some consideration on November 7. Some time last June the committee of the whole house also considered the bill and it had, of course, been dealt with somewhat extensively, though not as extensively as some of us would have liked, in the standing committee on transport and communications.
If one looks in a cursory way at the debate in committee of the whole it will be found that there has been a considerable amount of opposition and adverse speculation concerning the intent and purpose of this company. The speculation and opposition and the doubts about the company and the operation of the pipe line itself stem from all parties in the house. Therefore the concern in regard to this company has not been narrow or partisan but rather pretty broad and general.
I do not, of course, wish to put the hon. member for the Northwest Territories in an awkward position in respect of this bill, but quite frankly the fact that the proceedings with regard to the bill have been delayed from time to time indicates to me that even the sponsor of the bill had some doubts about its merits and what the operations of this company might be. One has only to look at the number of times the bill has been called to be proceeded with and then has been permitted to stand.
My hon. friend holds up a finger to indicate that this occurred once. It occurred last Thursday as well and on other occasions prior to the bill being given second reading. If I am mistaken I stand corrected and apologize to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. However, this is my understanding from watching the proceedings in respect of this bill. My understanding is that it has not been proceeded with on several occasions when called by the Chair. We all know that when this happens with regard to a private bill it simply means either that the sponsor is not in possession of all the information he would like to have about the structure of the operation of the company or that he has some doubts about it which need to be resolved in his own mind.
Because a number of objections and doubts have been expressed by members in the
January 30, 1968

house and in committee concerning the bill I am quite sure the officers and agents of the company, not to mention the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, have looked at these objections and doubts and are perhaps prepared to try to allay the doubts and fears expressed by hon. members. It may be that at some subsequent stage of the bill the hon. member for the Northwest Territories may have some comments to make concerning the doubts that have been expressed in the past. He may not have that opportunity today, incidentally, and whether the opportunity will arise on some subsequent Thursday is problematical. However, as long as the doubts which have been expressed by members on both sides of the house remain I think it behoves us not to pass the bill until they are cleared up. This matter will be explored later by some of my colleagues.
One aspect of the bill that concerns me is one which has concerned me in respect of other companies that have come before us during this hour to seek authorization. I refer to the ownership, control and authority behind the particular company. This is set out on page 7 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on transport and communications for June 20 last. Mr. Barroll, vice president of Mobil Oil Canada Limited, pointed out that the ownership of Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation was fairly well equally controlled by three major oil companies. He lists the ownership. He states that Imperial Oil Limited has a 33J per cent equity, that Mobil Oil Canada Limited has a 33 J per cent equity, that Ac-quitaine Canada Limited has a 30 per cent equity and that Banff Oil Limited has a 3J per cent interest. Later there was some mention of the possibility that Acquitaine Canada Limited owned and controlled Banff Oil and that if that were the case the ownership, either directly or indirectly, was equally shared among Imperial Oil Limited, Mobil Oil Canada Limited and Acquitaine Canada Limited.
As I understand it, not one of these parent companies is a Canadian company in the sense that it is owned and controlled in Canada, even though the bill says that not less than two-thirds of the directors of Rainbow shall, at all times, be persons resident in Canada and Canadian citizens. I submit that this would not detract from the degree of foreign ownership which, incidentally, is 100 per cent. In this case, as I believe we have proposed on other occasions with regard to
Private Bills
insurance companies, I think there should be an element of Canadianism involved and that we should develop some wording-and I believe there is ample precedent for such wording to be used-which we could insert in the bill to indicate that parliament will give the company a reasonable period of time in the future to divest itself of its foreign ownership and complexion and become Canadian owned and controlled. In fact this is one aspect which I think should be cleared out of the way before we proceed to give final passage to the bill.
Another point about which I am concerned, and about which I expressed some thoughts on another occasion, Involves the export of raw materials. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not many months ago, although I cannot from memory either quote the words or cite the occasion, propounded fairly strongly the concept that particularly in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory we should bend every effort to develop the resources in the area. In other words, we should try to process in the territories whatever resource it may be through the various steps to the final manufactured or finished product. I am sure the hon. member for Northwest Territories, the sponsor of the bill, supports that principle. We all do because we are thinking in terms of Canadianism and the parochial necessity to develop industries close to the source of the raw material. This is true because such development provides the greatest amount of economic wealth to the area, e (6:10 p.m.)
As one of the objectives of the bill the company intends to export the raw material not only from the Northwest Territories to other parts of Canada but also out of the country. Information in this regard was given to the committee. Mr. Barroll, vice president of Mobil Oil, said the following, as recorded on page 3 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on transport and communications for Tuesday, June 20 last:
If you will permit me, I might make a statement here as to the location of the Rainbow Pipe Line system relative to the major crude oil distribution systems that exist in Canada today.
Apparently they had a map, although I did not see it, not being a member of the committee. Presumably this was pointed out to the members. He then said:
As shown on this map Rainbow Pipe Line system, as it is currently constructed, some 478 miles to this point here, connects to the terminals of Trans

Januaiy 30. 1968
Private Bills
Mountain Pipe Line and Interprovincial Pipe Line. These are the main trunk line systems that supply crude oil to the west coast refineries and the general export area here on the northeast coast of Washington.
If this company ever gets into operation, part of its proposal is to connect producing crude wells in the Northwest Territories with export systems which eventually reach the northwestern United States. Mr. Barroll then went on to say, as recorded on the same page:
In addition, of course, the system ties into the Interprovincial system which extends down through the United States to eastern Canada and supplies the important prairie markets and the markets in the Great Lakes area and, of course, the Sarnia market which is the principal destination for this crude.
The primary purpose of this company is to get the crude out of the Northwest Territories and to the Sarnia market. Mr. Barroll then talks about the desire of the company to enter the Chicago market which, at least at that time, was a relatively short crude oil area, as he put it.
I suggest that we should explore this whole matter thoroughly because we are apparently being asked to express a lack of concern for the well-being of the economy of the Northwest Territories in which this field exists. We are being asked to allow the extraction of crude oil from the Northwest Territories. Crude oil in its original state is of small value because it has received only the smallest amount of processing. As a raw material is processed its value increases. We are being asked, by allowing the export of this raw material, to disregard the potential interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. This is contrary to what the minister responsible for Indian affairs has suggested in respect of the national resources of these areas. We should not take the raw materials out of these areas before processing because this results in the lowest revenue for the people at the source. Surely that is not good in terms of Canadianism.
I am also disturbed by the requested powers and authority for this company. It has been said that the Rainbow Pipe Line Company is looking merely for a hunting licence. The company apparently wants to be placed in a monopoly position in order that it may do whatever it likes with the resources of this area, but let me remind hon. members that such a monopoly position puts everybody else in a disadvantageous position.

Let me refer again to the proceedings of the committee to indicate the philosophy inherent in the promotions of this company. Mr. Barroll said, as recorded on page 9, after quite extensive explanation about other aspects:
As a matter of prudence the solicitors for, and the management of, Rainbow Pipe Line Company deemed it advisable to get powers as broad as this committee saw fit to grant, so that they would be in a position to move into any area of transportation through pipe lines.
In other words, the company was saying, let us get everything we can. We may never need what we get but let us have the right to do sundry things. This company is seeking the right, without restriction or confinement, to do a variety of things. By way of comparison I think it is reasonable at this stage to refer to the bill which was being considered by the house earlier today. That bill would provide authority to a corporation to operate radio stations, microwave systems, television stations, interstation radio communication facilities, teletype, telephones and heaven only knows what else in the field of communications without restriction and without regard to whether or not the activity of that corporation is in the best interests of the country or the people of Canada. That corporation seeks authority in blanket form from the parliament of Canada to own, lease, operate and maintain all these facilities subject to the regulations and provisions of the Radio Act or any other statute relating to such communications facilities.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
In almost every case which has come to our attention of a company seeking authority such as this the officers of that company have had the grace to say they only want such authority and power for the purpose of carrying out its business activities. The company named in the bill before us suggests that its solicitors and management feel it prudent, in Mr. Bar-roll's own words, to obtain the broadest powers possible. So they even, and I submit they did it deliberately, excluded the normal saving words in such a clause restricting the company particularly to its own undertaking. Of course, sundry other rights are asked for in the bill, including permission to carry out various activities such as the maintenance and operation of aircraft and aerodromes-In this instance they point out that this activity is for the purpose of the company's undertaking-together with all the facilities and
January 30, 1968

appurtenances that go along with the operation of aircraft and aerodromes.
Now I come to the hunting licence aspect of the bill. The company seeks the right to search and prospect for gas, oil and other hydrocarbons and related substances or any of them, the right to drill for, extract and produce, store, refine, process, purchase, transport and distribute natural and artificial gas, oil and so on and, in fact, to do whatever other things oil companies do with respect to their search activities.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we had before us the other day a bill that contained the same type of garbage about which the hon. member for Skeena has been speaking. In that case the company decided that there obviously had to be some compromise between its hope to operate a pipe line and the lawyers' hope to have everything but the kitchen sink included in the bill. The company thought it would be wise to present a bill which would enable it to operate as a pipe line rather than presenting one that had no chance of passing. Therefore they compromised to the extent of presenting a bill asking for permission to operate a pipe line.
It is my opinion that the fault does not lie only with the lawyers who advise pipe line companies. Certainly I am not presuming to tell Imperial Oil whom it should hire as lawyers. I think some of the fault lies with the Senate. I believe that the legislation it is providing as a model for pipe line companies is a disgrace to that august body, and it is legislation that we certainly do not intend to endorse. The sooner the other place is advised that a company coming before parliament should ask only for what it wants, the better chance that company will have of receiving permission to do those things. Companies that ask for many things they do not really want but which they presume there might be a faint possibility of using 50 years later had better ask for those things when they are wanted and members of parliament will consider them. A good example is this bill and several earlier pipe line bills.
For the last few days we have been discussing the Broadcasting Act. We will be creating in effect a new television and radio communications system. That bill deals with
Private Bills
satellites, radar towers and all the other paraphernalia that go with communications systems.
To be fair to the pipe line companies, many of them have very sophisticated communications systems which are necessary for their operations and to enable them to keep in communication with stations along the line. But when they present legislation to us such as that contained in this bill I say it is a disgrace for members of parliament to vote for it. This is especially so when the company has told the committee that it has no intention of using some of the powers for which it is asking. Yet we allow such bills to pass because some lawyer in a fantasy thinks it is a service or function that might be useful at some time and it is therefore included in the bill.
I am interested in this bill for two reasons. I believe that before the bill passes the garbage should be removed from it. I think that will be done if the company sincerely wants to operate a pipe line. In that event they will ask for permission to operate a pipe line and will present a bill which will enable them to do so. They will not ask for permission to operate a communications system or systems, the right to own houses, distribute power and do the many other things included in the bill.
The other problem is much more important. It involves a discussion we had with several people concerning a bill that was passed previously. That bill was in the same field as this and provided somewhat the same coverage. I would like to refer to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on transport and communications of June 20 last and the evidence of Mr. Bar-roll. The company made a presentation to the committee and Mr. Barroll, the vice president of Mobil Oil, gave evidence before the committee. The seventh point in the conclusions he presented to the committee was as follows:
Finally, the people of Canada have a direct financial interest in development of petroleum resources in federally administered territories. It is to the advantage of Canada, we believe, to pass enabling legislation permitting the development of these resources so as to accelerate return to the government of Canada of royalty and lease sale revenue.
I agree with this. I also think that we have to decide for ourselves whether it is advantageous. We have to decide whether what we are doing is to the advantage of Canada or to the advantage of the oil company concerned. This company makes no bones about the fact

will never produce or people who are settling in an area which might not turn out to be as profitable as they had hoped.
When we set up the National Energy Board we stated that it should look after some of our responsibilities in this field. Frankly I do not think they are doing a good job in the south because they have allowed everything to go to the United States, to the extent that the Americans are now complaining about the export of our natural resources in the field of petroleum. We have not asked the National Energy Board whether it is necessary for 10 common carriers to go into the Northwest Territories, where as yet no oil is being produced, apart from Norman Wells and several other small developments. I exclude Norman Wells because there is a refinery there, but it is the only producer in the area. Yet we have now granted one charter and we are being asked to grant another. I believe that in the next two or three years we might be asked to grant five or six others. I ask hon. members: Why have we not called the National Energy Board before us in connection with these bills and asked some of their experts to give us a projection of the need for petroleum in the Northwest Territories? This is not a provincial matter, but one which is the responsibility of the federal government. We are acting both as a pseudo provincial government and as the federal government, and therefore we have a double responsibility in this field.
I think hon. members are either heing unfair to themselves or stupid, and I suggest it is not the latter. The situation in which we find ourselves is partly due to the way in which these bills are presented and partly to the unfairness of the committee structure and the way in which we operate, which does not allow us to provide the necessary protection. We have not called on the National Energy Board to come before the committee and make its recommendations. I should like to see the sponsor of the bill ask that the bill be returned to the committee for further study and that the National Energy Board be requested to provide us with some information with regard to the necessary protection. I note the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, through the Vawn Pipe Line and the Rainbow Pipe Line, have explored the area and have found there is not enough crude for both of them, and that in fact there will not be enough crude for either of them if the potential is not there. I was advised that this was the situation so far as
Private Bills
the Rainbow Pipe Line is concerned and that the three lines which are now going out of the Rainbow field into Edmonton have a greater capacity than is justified. This field did not turn out quite as well as was anticipated.
These matters should be considered by members of parliament. It is not good enough for us to give a rubber stamp approval to these private companies. If there is any reason for their wishing to be incorporated by parliament, then there is a justification for giving greater attention to these bills. I am certainly not suggesting that the sponsor of the bill has not considered this matter sufficiently because I am sure he has, in view of the fact that the people he represents will be the ones who will really suffer if we do not handle the granting of these licences so as to protect the people who will invest in these companies, who will work in these fields in an atmosphere of exhilaration and who may find themselves in a sad state if the companies are not successful in their operations.
Another consideration must be taken into account so far as the National Energy Board is concerned, and that is the fact that we are importing into Canada more oil than we are exporting. Surely the National Energy Board should consider that. In view of this, perhaps we should consider the construction of an east-west pipe line which would handle enough crude to supply the needs of the eastern markets, rather than import crude from Venezuela. If this is not feasible, then perhaps we should make an arrangement with the United States to bring in oil where it is easier and to return it from another area from which it can be supplied easier. We should consider some such arrangement, rather than the haphazard one which the National Energy Board seems to be planning. If this were done we may find it preferable not to grant further drilling permits in the Northwest Territories at this time, because I anticipate that vast quantities of oil will be discovered in that area. We may then find ourselves in a situation similar to that of Elliot Lake, where a large development took place and a great outlay of capital was made, following which there was no longer a market for the product.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Who suffers? The company does not suffer because it has a tax exemption over a long period of time. The shareholders do not suffer because they will be able to liquidate their holdings long before the man who has a house

January 30, 1968
Private Bills
in the new community which is dependent upon this resource. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would entreat the hon. member for Northwest Territories to refer this bill back to the standing committee so we can have a look at it. I am not so sure we were right in passing the last bill, since 1 have found certain implications in it which I did not realize were there. We made representations, and those representations were met. I think we have some responsibility in the matter. Now that I have pursued the matter further and in greater depth, I feel the member has a responsibility to investigate the potential for exploitation that will obviously prevail with the granting of an interprovincial licence, which will allow this company to move from Alberta. I am sure everyone will agree there has been a great deal of exploitation in Alberta. This province does not seem to mind as long as you pay for it. We may find that the Northwest Territories cannot be compensated in a way that will produce anything for the people or for the rest of Canada.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if some of these things are not clarified in the bill, and some of the junk removed, then I feel this will indicate the company does not want to proceed with the bill. I will consider it in that light.


Mr. Churchill:: While other members were speaking, Mr. Chairman, I reviewed the debate on this particular bill and I noted it received considerable attention on two occasions, last June and again in November. It is now before parliament for the fourth time and does not have much prospect of being passed. From time to time we hear complaints from people about parliament being very slow in passing certain legislation. I have on occasions wondered about so many of the private bills which appear to stand on the order paper for a considerable length of time. It seems to me that sponsors of bills of this nature should pay closer attention to the operations of parliament.
As I read over the earlier debates I found, and I may have missed a few names, that the hon. members for Acadia, Kindersley, Edmonton West, Calgary South, Timiskaming, Skeena and Comox-Alberni have all had useful and appropriate remarks to make with regard to this particular bill. Despite this, the bill has not been modified. We have not heard from the sponsor as to whether it is going to be modified in accordance with the suggestions made by these members, and perhaps

others who may have spoken. The bill is still in the house and is being debated today. Obviously it will not go through.
Other bills, which perhaps are less contentious, are held back. At some stage, people who have private bills before this house should give some attention to the objections that are raised, particularly when the objections are raised by able members of parliament such as the ones I have mentioned. Of those I have mentioned, some are residents of the province of Alberta and are fully aware of the area affected by the bill in question. However, we have not heard from the sponsor of the bill as to whether the objections that have been raised will be considered. I feel that this is not good practice. These people who are anxious to obtain the charter should very quickly, if they are seriously concerned with getting the charter, make some accommodation with the members of this house.
Over and above the debates to which I have drawn attention, this bill was studied in the appropriate committee of the house. Witnesses were questioned and certain objections were raised during the course of the committee proceedings. Instead of anyone raising objections about parliament holding up private bills, the objection that should be raised is that the people who are anxious to get this bill through should meet with members in order to effect some compromise. In this way we may get on with other important matters which other people have brought before parliament.
I hope that the member who has introduced this bill will make some statement today and let us have some idea as to what the plan is for the future. Is this bill simply to come forward again? Are the same arguments in opposition to it to be advanced again? There is no other course open to the members of the house if they are not satisfied with the bill which is placed before them. It is that type of co-operation that should prevail between members of this house, and people who are interested in getting bills through and not the situation which we have now. Looking back at the debates which occurred, as they are recorded in Hansard for June, one finds there was ample opportunity between June and November for the interested parties to modify the bill or discuss with interested members of this house how it might be adjusted so that parliament might give its consent to it. So far as I am concerned, basing my judgment on the statements made by various members
January 30, 1968

who have spoken, I am in a position where, unless they inform me otherwise, I could not support the bill.
I ask the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill what accommodation is to be made with regard to the argument there should be ample opportunity for Canadian ownership of this company. What is the answer to the suggestion that this company might have an effective monopoly in the area with which it is concerned? What is the answer to the objection that the profits might be used for further exploration rather than for a reduction of the tariff for moving products through the pipe line? Just glancing quickly at the various submissions that have been made on the bill itself, I do not discover answers to these particular questions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the only reason I have intervened has been to express my concern at this method of dealing with bills of this nature, which we must assume are of importance to the people who have brought them to the attention of parliament. I doubt if you would be able to find in the total membership of this institution anyone who opposes the development of our country. This is one of our major objectives. We are not opposed to pipe lines or railway lines or roads to resources. This has been one of the outstanding features of parliament during the years I have been here,-to further the resource development of our country. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we have before us a bill aimed at resource development that is not passing readily through the house.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
This is not the first pipe line bill that has come to the attention of parliament. I well remember many years ago a very distinguished member of the house from Vancouver Quadra, Hon. Howard Green, took a keen interest in bills of this nature and drew to the attention of the house the significance of some of the bills which came to his attention at that time. His alertness in dealing with those bills subsequently proved advantageous when even more important measures relating to pipe lines were brought before parliament. So there has been plenty of experience in the past in the matter of pipe line bills.
In what respects, Mr. Chairman, does this bill differ from others of similar nature that have been debated in this house? If this bill is similar to the others that have gone through, then I can only suggest that perhaps parliament made a mistake in passing the
Private Bills
other bills, or that there is now more knowledge available to members in dealing with bills of this nature.
I urge the member of the committee who is sponsoring this bill to give us a statement now so as to clear the air for the next occasion on which this bill comes to our attention. In order not to consume all of the time I will now bring my remarks to a close.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, apparently the sponsor of the bill is not prepared to take up the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre; I was rather hoping that he was. If one follows through some of the discussion that has taken place on this bill he cannot help but share the concern over the way it has been dealt with, as it was expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Certainly I was glad to hear him express the concern about this bill that a number of other members of the house have been expressing.
The point is well illustrated if one refers to the proceedings of the standing committee on transport and communications for June 20 last, where one discovers that the committee itself was not very happy with the result of the rather desultory consideration given the bill in the period during which the committee met. The members of the committee were not too well satisfied with the information, or with what some of them felt was the lack of information, provided by the witnesses appearing on behalf of the applicants.
This is very well illustrated at the point in the proceedings that appears at page 15 of the committee report. Apparently the committee had passed most of the clauses, but the chairman of the committee was in effect stifling the request of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle to get some further information about shareholders before the bill was finally approved. At that point the hon. member for Acadia said:
The officials have not denied the fact that Imperial Oil and Mobil Oil are American owned and that the Acquitaine group is French owned. If the government, as it proclaims, is working in the interests of the Canadian public at this time-
The hon. member was interrupted at that point by the chairman, who said:
Let us not go into that, Mr. Horner. Order, please. This is a private member's bill, Mr. Homer, as you know. Mr. Horner, you are getting out of line now. You are free to vote against it.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I may just do that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: That is your prerogative.
6174	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting I will ask for a vote. Those in favour of the preamble carrying, please signify? Those opposed? The vote is tied. The preamble carries.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Wait a minute. Did you vote, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am just casting the deciding ballot.


Mr.   Homer@Acadia: All right; so long as the committee understands that.
I have been a member of a number of committees of the house from time to time that have dealt with bills, and certainly had I been a member of this particular committee at that time I would have considered that a tied vote on whether or not the preamble of the bill should carry was bringing the hearing of the bill to an end on a very unhappy note. It is obvious that the members of the committee were not very well satisfied with their consideration of the bill.
I have drawn those excerpts from the proceedings of the standing committee to the attention of this committee of the whole in order to underline the remarks just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre about the general discontent that some of us feel, not only about this bill but about the procedure for dealing with matters of this kind.
We are here dealing with a bill which, if it does involve the building of transportation facilities for the carrying of a commodity, is in direct conflict and competition with another bill that we passed in this house a few days ago. One cannot help but ask whether this is a logical and rational course of action for this parliament to follow. Certainly it is the kind of question that requires consideration and goes far beyond the scope of any one of these bills.
Coming back to my reference to the committee-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and advise the committee that the hour for the consideration of private members business has expired. Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to resume the business interrupted at six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: 

BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-163. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order,
please. When the committee rose at six o'clock it was considering clause 2 (h) and the amendment thereto by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I called it six o'clock. I find it difficult to reconcile the language of this clause with the classical definition of small "1" liberal philosophy. I find it repugnant to see in legislation any clause which says that any conflict between the private and public sectors in broadcasting shall be, ipso facto, resolved in favour of the public sector. The minister ought to display again her spirit of compromise and good sense by eliminating that part of the clause altogether.
As I said before the supper adjournment, we have come a long way since the 1930's when the C.B.C. was first established. Many of the relevant considerations of those days need not necessarily be today's considerations. In a country like Canada it is necessary to have all sorts of hybrid systems. We are a large country with few people, and we have hybrid systems in the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways, as well as in Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada. In the legislation covering those organizations there is no clause that says that any conflict between private and public sectors in transportation shall be resolved in favour of the public sector.
Though the minister tried valiantly to explain the meaning and intent of the clause I submit that she did not, herself, believe in the explanation she gave the committee. She
January 30, 1968


Mr. Pelleiier:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about that matter, because I feel that it is very important for the future of
6176	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting broadcasting in Canada. To give an idea of the general tone of my remarks, 1 must say first of all that the only amendment I can support is the formula proposed by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) before the dinner recess.
I would like to begin with an answer to a question put by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) at the end of his remarks. He asked: If we discard that subclause, what will be lost? I would like to say that, in my opinion, we would lose something that is essential and absolutely necessary, namely a clear standard of judgment to guide the members of the Board of Broadcast Governors.
What does this paragraph do? It indicates specifically in what sense difficult decisions will be taken, difficult problems will be solved by the B.B.G., in what sense, I repeat, these decisions will be taken, in what sense these problems will be settled. This paragraph indicates that, other things being equal, from the technical standpoint or from the audience point of view, the board will have to take into consideration that the C.B.C. is a public service and the private stations are private enterprise, and that there is a difference in nature between them. If we do not give the B.B.G. this criterion, it will be a very bad service to do them.
I have often heard from professional workers in broadcasting a criticism that seems well founded to me, it is that heretofore legal texts governing broadcasting in Canada were not sufficiently explicit. Decision making cannot be left to a board of governors if the legislator does not write into the act his own interpretation of the role the board of governors is to fulfil. If the government fails to indicate in what direction the rules must be made, the men appointed to the board are left in doubt and uncertainty and they are put in a most difficult situation because we ourselves as legislators have failed to take our responsibilities.
Why must we supply this standard of judgment and indicate to the authorities who will be intrusted with making the rules in what direction parliament wants those decisions to be made? As I said, there is a difference in nature between the crown corporation and the private sector.
Since the beginning of the debate, I was surprised to realize to what extent most of the speakers recognized in fact that the C.B.C. was a public service and operated in special


January 30, 1968
circumstances and also to what extent, in the area of principles, it was sought to ignore the very same fact. For instance, after the criticism formulated here in the past week one might be tempted to conclude that the crown corporation alone commits all the sins of Israel, whereas private stations are pure virgins who never had any thought of making a questionable gesture.
When, for instance, it is known that on several private stations across the whole country we are imposed the views of a group of sorry nitwits "open line" programs-I do not have the French equivalent-one wonders why no one has ever mentioned it here. What are we to think, for instance, of certain private stations forcing us to listen for hours to the advice of woeful idiots who claim to answer questions telephoned in to them on matters as different as theology, philosophy, law and medicine? I do not say that telephoned programs are wrong by nature. I know some of them are all right and I think it is a credit to the C.B.C., when such programs are broadcast to do them with someone well-informed and capable of dealing with one subject at a time.
It is called democracy; I heard someone cry it out from the right. As for me, I have never sought to equate idiocy and democracy. I think we should distinguish between the two and if the hon. member did not, I am wondering why he is here.
If I am not mistaken, I am the first one in this house to speak of the low intellectual level, of the pitiful cultural level, of the deplorable nonsense to which audiences of certain private stations are subjected in this country. Why did not the other members say something about it? The only reason I can find, is that they kept all their harshness in store for the C.B.C., because that corporation has a special status, because it has a special authority, and because parliament must consider it as its own creature.
If the C.B.C.-and I am not discussing that at this moment-deserves, since it is this parliament's creature, the criticisms it was subjected to, some of which are justified, while some others are ridiculous, in short, if the C.B.C. on account of its status, deserves those criticisms, I think it is equally justifiable that in the legislation, it receives particular attention from this parliament of which it is a creature.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.
January 30, 1968
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Irénée Pelletier: That is why I shall vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. That is why, if the Secretary of State retains the second wording which she asked us to consider during the supper hour, I shall be able to support it. But in my opinion, it would be ill-advised to delete the whole clause, as suggested. It is a standard of judgment that would be lost, and it would prove a great loss.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to deal also with some other interventions made late this afternoon. For instance, when it is suggested that there is no difference between the words "objectives" and "interests" and that it is merely a matter of semantics, I feel this does not mean anything. It is quite clear that the objectives of the C.B.C. and the interests of private stations are very different. Anyone can readily understand what is involved. As far as the corporation is concerned, it is a formal mandate conferred on it by parliament and written out in full in this piece of legislation.


Martial Asselin: With our own money.


Irénée Pelletier: Exactly. That is why the C.B.C. must be given a clear mandate and that is also why it must be given a special protection. When private stations	are
involved, I do not see why anyone should wonder that less attention is given to them by the government.	When objectives	are
involved, it is clear. They are defined in the act. When the interests of private stations are mentioned, if some members do not know what is involved I think I am capable of explaining it to them.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I may rectify. There was no question of the interests of private stations but of public interest. It is not the same thing.
The Assislanl Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Hochelaga has the floor.


Irénée Pelletier: I wonder why the member for Lapointe raised this objection, Mr. Chairman, when it is clearly stated in the text:
-where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element-
So, if that is not the question in the mind of the member for Lapointe, it is because he
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting has not read the act. He should read it at once, in view of the fact that he has already made three speeches on the subject.
I was saying that if some people question the meaning of the interest of private stations, let them table with private broadcasters. Let them ask them, for instance to make cultural broadcasts and they will be given the answer I received a hundred times and that the house committee received at least fifteen times: We have to make profits. So we cannot make this kind of programs because they are not profitable. That is the interest of the private stations, nothing else. And when one refuses to make a distinction between people who quite legitimately-as people can legitimately manufacture shoes or automobiles- commercially operate a wave length and a crown corporation, and when one refuses to make such a distinction and pretends not to understand the interests of private stations, I think it is a mockery. The interests of the private stations are very well and constantly understood by the owners of the stations. When they appeared before the committee, they stated: You cannot ask this, you cannot ask that which you are asking of the C.B.C. because the corporation is financed by public funds whereas private stations must make profits.
In my opinion, those who claim that there is only a difference of words between the objectives of a public corporation and the commercial interests of the private stations are willfully closing their eyes to the real difference.
I would like to say also that I find unjustified the objection of those who claim that in any conflict the board of governors will have to settle in favour of the C.B.C. if the legislation is passed as it stands now. That is not so. In view of the way the legislation is drafted, it is obvious that the prefernce will be given to the C.B.C. only when its mandate it involved.
That is why I see no objection to the amended version proposed by the hon. Secretary of State. We, in this house, are responsible for formulating the objectives of the C.B.C. in such a way that they will coincide with the public interest in broadcasting matters. And if we have not managed to do that in the wording of the act the error does not lie in that paragraph, but rather in the whole clause in which parliament formulates the mandate of the C.B.C.; this mandate must

6178	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting express the public interest in matters pertaining to broadcasting in Canada. This means that, should conflicts be brought before the Board of Broadcast Governors, should it be asked to decide who should broadcast a hockey or football game, the governors will surely understand, unless they are credited with very little brains, that the objectives of the C.B.C. are not involved in that case.
But, on the other hand, should conflicts arise where, for instance, they have to choose between allowing the setting up of a private station in a large city, and such a case will come up very shortly, or, on the same wave length, serving two stations in a territory which is not reached by the C.B.C., the board of governors will then have that subclause to use as a guide to reach its decision and I think that it will be greatly needed.
I will end my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the whole structure of that legislation makes an extremely important distinction which was not understood at all-I am thinking of the general intent of that legislation-if it was not understood that the C.B.C. is a creature of this parliament which must keep a strict hand over it but-I am trying to find the right words-must also care for it, because it is its own creature.
Therefore, if that subclause is dropped from the legislation, it is the whole structure of that bill, the whole spirit of the bill which would be destroyed and I think that this would be extremely serious.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against the amendment before us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. member.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have something else I should like to say later concerning the remarks of the hon. member, but I should like to ask him this question now. In view of the fact that Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways also are creatures of this parliament, could he tell me what clause in their incorporating acts sets out such a term as is in this broadcasting bill, so far as the public interest is concerned? Has not the public interest been protected in the decision of the respective boards that govern these bodies?

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the question put by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) by another question and ask him whether he makes a distinction between a transport company and a broadcasting company, that is, between a business enterprise and a cultural institution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important and very interesting discussion we are having here on the matter of conflict between the objectives of the national broadcasting system and the interests of the private broadcasting system. I listened carefully to the remarks of the minister this afternoon, in which she endeavoured to establish that what is really involved here is not an interest against an interest, but rather an objective set by parliament on the one hand in respect of a public interest and on the other a private interest. I wish I could agree with the hon. lady because I would then have no difficulty at all in accepting her view and supporting the subclause without amendment. But I cannot accept her view as to how the word "objective" will be interpreted, and I regret I have to reject her argument. Therefore I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
I have some examples I should like to cite in support of my contention that the minister's interpretation is simply not applicable. If one looks at a dictionary, and I believe in fact my colleague the hon. member for Halifax has done so, one will find that the dictionary definition differs as between the interpretation of the words "objective" and "interest". That is all very well, but when busy members of a board are interpreting an objective they are not going to look up the dictionary definition. If they do they will be argued out of their position by the practical situation of the moment.
I am quite satisfied that if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has an interest in reserving a position for a station in any particular city, it will readily make an interpretation to the Board of Broadcast Governors, or the new radio-television council, to the effect that this is in the interests of or in accord with the objectives of the Canadian
January 30, 1968

Broadcasting Corporation. I am sure they will say that in order to achieve our great national objectives it is necessary that this reservation be maintained, and that it is necessary as an objective of the national broadcasting service that the second outlet in city "x" be reserved for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and not given to a private broadcasting interest.
On this basis, they will maintain, we have a conflict between the objectives of the national broadcasting service on the one hand and the interests of some private station on the other, and it must be resolved in favour of the public system. This is nonsense. I submit, with respect, that it is nonsense to suppose that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to maintain that nice distinction between this interest on the one hand and the objectives of a national broadcasting service on the other.
I should like to give an example, which astounded me, in respect of the practical application of this situation. In my own city of Kamloops there has been for some time an interest in the establishment of a second AM-FM radio station outlet. The application was submitted to the Board of Broadcast Governors for approval. Recently I was asked to take the matter up with the board, and I have done so. I have been informed that the applicant is aware of the policy, announced some time ago, to refrain from recommending favourably on licences for additional radio stations in markets, in which we are seeking to introduce alternative television. It so happens that the only T.V. station in Kamloops is a private station, although it is a C.B.C. affiliate. As far as I can gather, the board is concerned and interested to see that there is an extension of C.B.C coverage in Kamloops. That is a very proper interest and the people there will be happy, although this is a separate matter.
In this case we have a situation in respect of which the C.B.C. will argue that because it is in their interest to have a second C.B.C. television outlet there, the board should not allow the establishment of a second radio outlet. Could anything be more ridiculous than that the citizens of the Kamloops area should be deprived of the opportunity of a second radio outlet because somebody at an obscure height has set a policy that the board will not allow a second radio outlet until a second television outlet has been established?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
At this moment I do not suggest this is C.B.C. policy, or a policy imposed by the C.B.C. on the board, but I do give this as an example of the kind of ridiculous situation we will have if an act of this parliament suggests that when there is a conflict, the conflict will always be resolved in favour of the public agency.
For these reasons I cannot see any real or cogent argument against the proposition incorporated in the amendment submitted by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. That amendment suggests that where there is a conflict in any area, the conflict will be resolved in favour of the public interest. It suggests that the public interest must prevail. I hope very much that a direction is adopted which is as simple as that, and that such direction be incorporated in the act. That is what this amendment would do. The Board of Broadcast Governors or the new radio and television council would then have a very simple directive.
What is the public interest in the city of Kamloops and area? That is the question the board, with this directive, would ask itself. The public interest in that area is in obtaining an additional radio station. It would then be very simple to make a decision in the public interest. But this decision would not be made as a result of the present wording of subclause (h).
That is all I have to submit on this matter, but I hope that by the example I have cited the minister will be persuaded to take another look at the implications of what she said this afternoon. It is also my hope that the arguments submitted by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, will have perhaps even more effect than the argument I have submitted. The minister seems to have paid more attention to them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He is closer than you are.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is a very practical person, and it is my hope that she will pay some attention to the practicality of the situation; that is, that no board or body will pay any attention to the dictionary definition of the words "objective" and "interest". Certainly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not going to pay any attention to that difference. They will interpret an "interest" as an "objective". Also, it will be very difficult for the new council to differentiate between what is submitted by the C.B.C. as an "interest" on
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting their part and an "objective" on their part, as they interpret their responsibility under this bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member not concede that since their representative has been in the gallery throughout the whole of this debate, that is highly unlikely?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. If the minister means to suggest that a representative of the C.B.C. has been here in the gallery-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A representative of the B.B.G.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister means to suggest that because a representative of the
B.	B.G. has been here in the gallery, he is going to influence the position taken by the
C.	B.C., I think she is rather more naive than I give her credit for.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Secretary of State will not yield on this clause in any way, because in my submission it is the touchstone of the attitude of this parliament to the public broadcasting system which parliament set up. I say, with all kindness to my friend the hon. member for Kamloops, that if he really meant what he said when he was discussing the lack of difference between "objective" and "interest", he has a great deal less intelligence than I have always given him credit for.
The hon. member starts by saying that if you look up the dictionary there is no difficulty; the dictionary makes very clear the difference between the word "objective" and the word "interest". Then he goes on to say, in effect, as I understood him-and I am not quoting him-that the C.B.C. will delightfully ignore the difference which the dictionary gives and, furthermore, that the Canadian radio-television council that is being set up by this bill, which is the body with authority, will also ignore the difference that he admits is the normally accepted difference between the two words.
I suggest to him, also, that as a gentleman learned in the law, in the context of this particular statute what he said is utter nonsense, as is the case with what was said by other hon. members previously, because we define the objectives to which the C.B.C. has to pay attention; we define them in the immediately preceding subclause. We say, in subclause (g) that "the national broadcasting


service" shall do certain things. These are the objectives of the national broadcasting service. The national broadcasting service must provide a balanced service of information, enlightenment, entertainment, etc. This service must be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available. It must be in English and French, serving the special needs of geographic regions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question? Where in those definitions, for instance, does he find the justification for the decision that certain areas will be reserved for C.B.C., and therefore people will be deprived of secondary outlets?


David Lewis: The point I was making-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that an "interest" or an "objective"?


David Lewis: I will come to that in a moment. As I read subclause (h), there is no suggestion that this is the kind of thing with which it deals, as far as the national broadcasting service is concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the kind of thing that is in effect now.


David Lewis: Just hold it for a moment. There are other considerations in this question. I am saying that the objectives of the national broadcasting service, about which my hon. friend was talking, are set out in subclause (g) of the bill. I was drawing attention to the fact that it must be in English and French, serving the special needs of geographic regions, and so on; and it must contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity. As I read subclause (h), all it says in effect is that if these objectives come into conflict with the profit-making interests of the private sector, these objectives are to prevail. That is all it says. It says no more than that.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? He says that as he reads subclause (h), all it says is so-and-so. Then he extends that to subclause (g). I would ask the hon. member whether he thinks that subclause (g) says specifically that paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)-these and no more-are the objectives of the national broadcasting service.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would have no hesitation in saying to the hon. member for Winnipeg South that these, in the general
January 30, 1968	COMMONS
area, are the objectives of the C.B.C. That is what this parliament says. There may be some headings for which you cannot put every word down; but the objectives, the purposes, the reason for the existence of the corporation are set out in subclause (g), and all that subclause (h) says is that when the profitmaking interests of the private sector come into conflict with these objectives of the C.B.C., the objectives which we in parliament have placed before the corporation, the objectives of the C.B.C., are to prevail. That is what it says, and that is what it means.
I do not think the intelligent members of the official opposition would have had any difficulty in seeing the difference between "objective" and "interest", that is, the difference that this subclause insists on, the difference in the public, social purposes which the public corporation, we say-by "we", I mean parliament-is to sanction, and the private, profit-making interests of the private channels and stations of the private radio and television companies, were it not for the fact that they have used it, as have people generally in the house during this debate, as a Roman holiday for all their opposition to public broadcasting as such.
What they would really like to see is the C.B.C. tied hand and foot, confined and gripped, as to programming, purposes and expansion in order that the private sector of the broadcasting service may have more opportunity for enlarging the already large profits it has made over the years. The basic philosophy underlying this argument is that the public corporation has all the air that is being used and all the other facilities which broadcasting requires, and these things are a public trust. As I pointed out in a speech during another stage of the proceedings under this bill, even in the United States of America, where all the private networks have flourished almost beyond belief, they have finally required-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I say "flourished" in terms of the money they make, and not in terms of the programs they produce, let me hasten to assure the hon. member who applauded. The junk which comes over their networks I can do without, but there is a great deal of profit in it. Even in that country it was found necessary for Congress within the last few months to establish a public broadcasting corporation and for public funds to be made available to 27053-390J
DEBATES	G181
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting supply that corporation with the necessary wherewithal with which to continue.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Ten million dollars for a research project.


David Lewis: This is just a start, and if my hon. friend does not know it, he should read the report. This is just a beginning of the public broadcasting service that has started in a country which is said to be the leader of all private enterprise, ideas and lack of them.
I said when I started that I hope the minister will not budge on this clause, because it is the touchstone of the bill. Is parliament genuinely desirous of having a public broadcasting system and of having that system serve the purposes set out in subclause (g), or is it prepared to permit the private profit making radio and broadcasting companies to interfere with that purpose and the purposes set out in the act?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: If hon. members did not know before that my love of the profit motive is not as great as theirs, I can tell them that that is the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Has the hon. member socialized his fees yet?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me if I do not deal with these really cheap personal remarks.
I say that this is the touchstone of the act and that parliament should not recede from the proposition that the purposes of the public service system as defined in the statute must take precedence over private networks which serve another purpose than those we set down in the statute. We should not be led astray by the attempt to suggest that there is no difference between the objectives on the one hand and the interests on the other.
It is obvious to me that the intention of the subclause is to put the social objectives of the public broadcasting system above the company interests of the private broadcasting companies, and this should remain in the act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think nothing can be more revealing in the alliance of the hon. member for York South with the minister sponsoring this bill with respect to subclause (h) than the obvious illustration of the
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting iear of the hon. member for York South of the interpretation of the words "public interest".


David Lewis: Oh, poof.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes, the hon. gentleman is very good at imputing motives to others but when his own motives are revealed he resorts to callous and stupid interjections. The hon. member is afraid of the introduction into this bill of words which say that when there is a conflict it must be settled in accordance with the public interest. That is what he is afraid of.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member for Kamloops a question? Would the hon. member, who I am sure wants to be fair, not agree that the public interest is defined in subclause (g) as being the objective of the national broadcasting service? I need not take any lesson from him or anyone else about the public interest and my regard for it.


Mr. Fullon:: If my hon. friend is satisfied with that definition of public interest, why does he object to its reintroduction in subclause (h)? His position seems to me to be most extraordinary. He says that public interest in broadcasting is defined in subclause (g), yet he objects to its reintroduction in subclause (h) as the arbiter of differences between the interests of one sector of the system and the other.


David Lewis: It is already introduced.


James Ross Fulton: My hon. friend's position is completely inconsistent. It is all very well to talk about profits.
I did not intend to get into an argument with my friends on the left. My quarrel is with my friends on the other side, because they are the ones who introduced the bill. However, it is interesting indeed to see the alliance between the government and the members of the N.D.P. on this matter. It is also interesting to recall the tenor of the debate up to this point, and the extent to which neither the government nor the N.D.P. is prepared to see parliamentary control asserted over the C.B.C.
We are prepared to take our stand on the matter of parliamentary control over the C.B.C. and on the matter of the public interest being the arbiter of differences between the public broadcasting corporation and the private sector of the system. We are happy to take it against both the N.D.P. and the government in combination.
IMr. Fulton].


David Lewis: Dual courage.


James Ross Fulton: My friend, the hon. member for York South, ridiculed me because I ventured to suggest that the Board of Broadcast Governors or the Canadian radio-television council might not be prepared to pay too much attention to the strict dictionary definition of the two words "objectives" and "interests". I do not withdraw one word of what I said, and I am reinforced in my view as to how it will be interpreted by the hon. member for York South who attempted to predict the way in which the board would interpret the word "interest", so far as the private sector is concerned, as being exclusively profit making opportunities. He said that all that would be imposed here would be public objectives on the one hand and profit making opportunities for the private stations on the other. He said that is all that the board should consider.


David Lewis: That is right.


James Ross Fulton: That is a perfect example of the approach of the N.D.P. and, I am afraid, of the approach taken by the minister with respect to this act. I do not admit for a moment that there is not a proper place for the private segment of the broadcasting system, nor do I take second place to anyone in my belief that there is a large place for the public segment, namely the C.B.C. But I say that in view of the tremendous costs that are now a concomitant of broadcasting, especially colour television broadcasting, it behooves parliament to recognize that the whole field cannot be filled by the public agency, and that therefore we must provide a proper place and proper protection of, as well as regulation for the private interests or private segment of the broadcasting system. Since it is inherent in the approach of the government -although they give it place in only small, lower case letters-that there is a place for both the publicly owned corporation, namely the C.B.C., and the private segment, I do not understand why the minister and the government will not place them on a fair footing.
All that the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, attempts to do is to place the two sectors on a fair footing. I repeat that we in the official opposition are prepared to see, as the arbiter of differences which may arise between them, not a predisposition to judge in favour of the public corporation but rather the fair and true test of the public interest, and we take our stand on that basis.
January 30, 1968


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he tell me why the official opposition, whose spokesman he is now professing to be, bothers to choose and send to committees of the house representatives who purport to speak for that party, and then completely repudiates them when the bill returns to the house?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is not the case at all. My hon. friend cannot get away with that kind of self-serving argument. If she can show me where anything I have said is inconsistent with the stand taken by this party in the broadcasting committee, then I would think her statement may have some validity.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Did the hon. member not hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond say earlier that this phraseology was the phraseology which had been drafted by the Conservative party spokesmen in the standing committee on broadcasting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am speaking of the amendment to this clause, which is put forward officially by the official opposition.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, if I might be allowed, very briefly I should like to say through you to the minister, that I have spent nearly 16 years in private enterprise radio and television as an announcer, writer and commentator. I do not pretend that I am blessed by God, or a certified expert in this field; however, I think I should at least have some worth-while ideas on this matter which would be as sound and as justified as many others which have been expressed at length during the debate on this bill.
If you will allow me, I should like to go back to my native French in which I am much more fluent so that there will be no mistakes. Before doing so, however, I should like to say I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in the radio field, the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Halifax, both of whom have spent many years in this field. In so far as the amendment is concerned, I want to point out right away that I cannot agree with it in view of the discussion in the committee, both in public and in camera.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell you how I regret that the diligent and very hard work of the representatives of the different parties
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of the public and closed meetings of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts and to prepare the legislation, reconsider it, to accept, as the minister mentioned a moment ago, the good ideas, the intelligent ideas which, it must be admitted, come from all sides of the house, should not be considered more seriously. The suggestions were taken into consideration and, in this case, it was precisely one of the distinguished members of this house whom I admire and will always admire as much as I can, who helped us to write out the exact wording.

This was agreed to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and many others, all very nice people. I could refer to the hon. member for Prince and the hon. member for Royal; we all agreed that this was the best way in which to circumscribe the problem. I cannot understand why we have had to spend all this time listening to speeches from members. We are spending many futile hours discussing this problem.

Now, to revert to a problem of concern throughout the country, it is unfortunate that this work should not be considered more seriously by certain members of the house. We have spent hour upon hour in serious discussions to arrive at a solution and all this work now seems useless. I am wondering what purposes are served by committees of the house, unless they provide an opportunity by common agreement and community spirit, by the exchange of ideas that accept and exchange, to arrive at an appropriate draft legislation?


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: It is a good show.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: It is a good show, but it will be a better one if you stand up.

It would surely be a good show although difficult for me to give in spite of my slight talent for comedy. The hon. member who has just interrupted me is greater than I and I pay homage to him.


Martial Asselin: You just won an Oscar.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I should like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I have always believed-it
6184	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting may be an illusion of youth, or one who would remain young,-that we could work seriously in this house without always meeting some opposition from all corners of the house. It seems to me that a bill which has been examined in committee and worked over, as a jeweller does to make a finer piece of jewellery, should be studied most seriously instead of being subjected to petty political attacks like the ones I can see showing opposite.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it would be advisable that you call the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) to order, because we are not discussing at present the work of the committee or the community of spirit, but rather the amendment moved by the Conservatives.
Now, when we are out of order, we are called to order. I would ask, therefore, that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet deal with the amendment, which he has not done up to now. Then, let us discuss the amendment. Members on that side must stop delaying the business of the house and dealing with all kinds of questions, except the bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am sure that if I were to suggest to the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet that he now return to the subject of subclause 2(h) he would be willing to do so.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: It is a pleasure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And now, for the information of the hon. member for Lapointe, if we complied with the standing orders he should be sent back to the province of Quebec, but not to his riding which he has repudiated by his failure to meet the wishes of his constituents.
Mr. Chairman, in order to please the hon. member for Lapointe-it might be one of the last favours granted to him in the house-I must say that I had made a careful study of this amendment and explain. After a serious and intense work to which the hon. member refrained from participating, for reasons which may be valid-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet accuses me of not having contributed to the work of the committee. I must say that I do

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
not sit on any committee because I was discriminated against and excluded from the committees.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member has no point of privilege.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon.
member for Lapointe. Quite often his objections are well taken but I should like to know why he did not attend the committee sittings, and did not raise questions as did others? It is probably because Expo was not over yet, at the time of the discussion or he might have had some other causes for concern? At any rate, he would rather ask his questions in the house, the "show" is better.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Someone has just explained to me that the hon. member was in France at the time, busy with fostering better relations-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I would think the hon. member may have completed his introductory remarks.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling me to order. I know that with your usual courtesy, you may have allowed a French-speaking member to speak a little longer, but when there are interruptions from all quarters, unfortunately we require more time.
To come back to what I specifically mentioned in my opening remarks, I cannot but support the hon. Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh) in spite of my personal friendship with my former colleagues in private radio and television, the members for Winnipeg and Halifax.
However, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to pour a little well-deserved balm over some of the statements on private enterprise of my highly respected colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier).
This is precisely the question I want to raise about the amendment to subclause (h) dealing with the conflicts which may arise between the objectives of the national service, and so on. I would just make this one small point. In my view, perhaps the hon. member for Hochelaga's words went further
January 30, 1968

than his thoughts when he spoke about private enterprise, in which, I will have you note, I have spent 16 of my best years. I only hope I have a few left to give to the house.
I would nevertheless point out to the hon. member for Hochelaga that it is not because of the money that I worked in private enterprise, for my salary there was half what it was elsewhere.
One must admit, Mr. Chairman, that private enterprise has rendered services of immense value to all Canadians, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and for that reason we must not persecute it.
I merely wished to raise this minor point. The hon. member said that all that private enterprise is seeking is to make money. It is obvious that when my former employers sold profitable businesses to embark upon a venture, which at that time was promising-and is still promising

it was not merely for philanthropic purposes. Nevertheless, I sometimes waited a whole week before cashing my pay cheque. Therefore, it was not merely for the sake of money or to enable the owner to make more money, but also to develop a whole area, that of new Quebec, before the government's broadcasting services stepped in. Such was the case in Rimouski, where CJBR was one of the pioneer stations, and in Matane, station CKBL, where I had the pleasure of working for several years.
It seems to me we have done our duty and my colleague for Hochelaga has himself benefited, at a time when he was engaged in labour relations, by the services of private enterprise. Private enterprise enabled him to reach certain strikers who wished to claim their rights.
I have no doubt about the sound judgment of the member who moved the amendment and the one who seconded it. I always had great respect for the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I met him in Quebec city,
I had a personal interview with him and I have always been under the impression that he was a real gentleman.

The hon. member is a real gentleman in the true sense of the word, but it does seem to me that his image has deteriorated a little bit. I say that in appreciation of what he has done in the past and I hope to see him make his comeback as soon as he can.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [Translation]
Now, about subclause (h), I hope that we all agree on the meaning of the word "conflict". Many hon. members indulged in semantics, quoted the dictionary, juggled with the words. For instance, if a conflict should arise between the "objectives" of the national broadcasting service and the "interests" of the private sector.
In some remote parts of western Canada or in the lower part of the north shore which I know well, the C.B.C. might have helped those people more if it had given them news commentaries. It would be preferable to avoid conflicts of jurisdictions and give the Board of Broadcast Governors-which might go under another name but which will surely be revamped thanks to the hon. members who took part in the proceedings of the committee, in short which will be stronger and will give up-to-date, healthier and better planned management-to honest officials a chance to prove their worth and thus enable us to help some remote areas of our country which until now have not benefited from the services of that Crown corporation.
I see the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) and several others who claimed that their area was not served by the C.B.C. We should not delay the work of a corporation which would be in a better position to give that assistance.
I say that in all logic and with all the good will in the world. It seems to me that we cannot, accept this amendment even if we agree with these happy suggestions.
I wanted to mention that, and I hope that these few objective remarks will enable us, by common consent, to find the best and most efficient solution for the moment. It will always be possible to bring about further improvements.
Once again, I want to say before concluding that I regret that the work of the committee did not allow us to make faster progress until now. I am looking at my friend from Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman)-


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet permit a question. He expressed the opinion in his opening remarks that the debate that has gone on up to this point may in some way militate against the committee system, because this subject was supposed to have been thoroughly examined by the standing committee on broadcasting. In fairness, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon.
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting member will admit and recall that during the examination of this particular clause by the standing committee no less a member of this house than his own colleague from Burin-Burgeo and others in the house raised objection to the wording of this paragraph and gave notice that it would be raised before the committee of the whole.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I admit that the comments of my hon. friend for Winnipeg South are quite in order. But we must soberly discuss, especially to enable the house to obtain more tangible results than previously. It seems to me that we could, as we commonly say, meet half-way. If everybody did so, we would make greater progress.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger). It is rather a lecture on rhetoric. He spoke of his past experience in private broadcasting stations. We know that he was once a brilliant announcer. But after the premises which he has just put forward, we immediately conclude that the amendment of our Conservative colleague should be carried.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet pleaded very remarkably in favour of fair play which must exist between the private sector and the C.B.C.
Of course, at the end of his speech he surrendered, as did several of his colleagues, when he said that it was absolutely necessary to follow the party line. This is why he ended up by admitting in a nearly inaudible voice that he had to support the position of the Liberal party and vote against the amendment of the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman).
Naturally, I am extremely surprised at the attitude of the member for Montmagny-LTslet (Mr. Berger) considering that he said earlier that he is one of those who sacrificed his life to the edification of a private system of broadcasting in Quebec, a system which, I think, should remain in operation, in spite of the objections of the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier).
I understand perfectly, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Hochelaga can present himself as a regular defender of the C.B.C. It is a known fact that he was a member of the C.B.C. for many years. But when the hon. member tells us that parliament must support the objectives set in this bill, with regard to

the C.B.C., he should keep in mind also that private radio and television stations must survive in Canada.
When the hon. member for Hochelaga said earlier that from his own experience and after interviewing owners of private radio and television stations, he found they were interested in profit rather than in culture, he may have been right. However, he forgot to mention that Canadian taxpayers are paying $90 or $100 million a year to meet the expenses of the C.B.C. and that the House of Commons must draw up a fair play legislation, so as to enable private radio and television stations to compete effectively with the C.B.C.
It is easy to put forward such great and noble goals as those contained in this bill with regard to the C.B.C. But we, the members of this house, represent the people who, through their taxes, contribute $90 million or $100 million a year to allow this crown corporation to operate this service.
Mr. Chairman, I was not surprised either to hear the echo-
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The C.B.C. spends approximately $5 a year of the hon. member's money.


Martial Asselin: May be, may be.

Nor was I surprised to hear the echo of the C.B.C. in the House of Commons. I mean the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who stated his views a while ago. From the start of the debate, we wanted to respect the integrity and independence of the C.B.C.-but we all know that the greatest defenders of the C.B.C. are the members of the New Democratic party who have crept into the C.B.C. and who control its ideas and philosophy.
Naturally, it is not surprising that the hon. member for York South should defend the interests of that crown corporation, but I feel that private radio stations must be given the fair play they deserve. These people operate a private business enterprise. They have invested considerable funds in order to set up their organization. Quite objectively, I think that we should support the amendment introduced by our colleague so that the public interest will become the main objective, since it is a question of the objectivity of the provisions set out in clause 2(h).
January 30, 1968

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to support the amendment introduced by a member of our party.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, when people start losing an argument they always get dirty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They call each other names. The hon. member for Kamloops defined our problem very clearly, and his point was important. We should know what it is we are putting into law. From all the divergent views that have been expressed here, obviously we are not clear about what we are putting into the law. I will speak of what I think we should put into it.
We talk about the public interest, and this is a very high sounding phrase. I believe the public interest should be served at all times. That does not necessarily mean to me or to the majority of my party that the public interest is necessarily the C.B.C.'s interest. When I talk of the C.B.C. I ask right away, "Who is the C.B.C.?" The term "C.B.C." does not mean the minister of the crown. Apparently in the past it has not been the upper echelons of the C.B.C. that administered that body. The stuff that has been coming out of the other end of the funnel is unmitigated red propaganda, and that is why red propaganda is being defended by some members of the house tonight.
We speak about the rat; naturally the rat bites. We must be careful about what we are putting into law. It is no good saying afterwards, "Well, we thought we put something into the act and it wasn't there." The public interest in Canada means the interest of all the people of Canada, including me, and the people of Canada really want full coverage of the airwaves as outlined in (g). The problem is how to get what you have outlined in (g) out of the other end of the funnel? We must have the mechanics for doing what we want, and if we are hoodwinked, if we give the C.B.C.-and I put that term in parenthesis because I want to know who are they, who is the C.B.C.-full power to pollute the Canadian airwaves, that is not the intention of the house or committee.
In plain words, in conservative words or anyone else's words, we want fair treatment on the airwaves. That does not mean that just because you lean to the left your opinions should not be heard. We want to hear them, but we also want to hear fair comment from
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting other people in our population-separatists, royalists or ordinary Canadians like myself.
We want to know if the C.B.C. administration will have teeth and if Mr. Davidson, a very able man, will be allowed to use his ability to clean up this mess that is called the C.B.C. that spends each year we are told, $170 million, plus of our money.
The lady minister says that it definitely is not her job to monitor what comes over the C.B.C. and she is desperately looking around for someone to take on that responsibility. Not many months ago this same lady explained that the reason for buying 120 colour television sets and distributing them was that she and her colleagues wanted to do just that-to monitor the C.B.C at our expense. They did not have enough money at $35,000 a year to buy themselves sets, so they had to buy them at public expense.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hope the hon. member doesn't mind, but I am leaving to watch mine.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: So far we do not know who bought them or where they went, but we do know who is paying. We do not know who is using them or whether they have been given back.
They talk about listening to this or that program, but when it comes to drafting definite laws, they are not so clear. I predict that by the vote on this amendment they will know in good, clear, ordinary conservative language, what is wanted. If they do not want to do what is to be done, if they do not give the power to someone to clean up the mess, then we shall see that it is done. If this government will not do what is necessary it will not take long for the Canadian public to know about it. If it is not done under this government it will be done when we get in.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wish to say something more on this clause. Since eight o'clock increasing numbers of members have come to this chamber. I wonder if the members on the government side appreciate that the clause we are discussing is pregnant with difficulties.


An hon. Member:: What is it bringing forth.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A few words have been used in the clause which may be misinterpreted. I understand the position of my friends to the left and I refer particularly to the hon. member for York South. I can appreciate many of
6188	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the remarks of the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet, but the question under discussion does need to be resolved by those who have experience in broadcasting. This is not a question of broadcasting philosophy but of political philosophy.
I can understand the hon. member for York South; his position is clear. I understand his strong objection to any amendment in this clause. If he had his way there would be no private network in this country. If he had his way there would be no private system anywhere. But I find it impossible to understand the thinking of many of my friends on the government side with respect to this clause. What does the amendment do? It merely says that the public interest shall prevail, and the council to be set up under this legislation shall determine in its deliberations what the public interest is.
The basic guide lines in the bill are set out in (b) and (g) and this amendment strikes me as perfectly reasonable. If it does not strike Liberal members that way, then I say it is high time for those members who say they espouse the classical Liberal philosophy to find what is their political id. Before they go to that convention in April they had better find out whether they are Liberals or whether they are sitting over here to my left. The hon. member for York South talked about a Roman holiday. He has not participated in this debate to any great extent. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has, it is true, taken a positive part in it. But the hon. member for York South should remember that until we went into committee 42 members of this house spoke on this bill on the resolution stage and during second reading, 12 of whom came from Her Majesty's loyal opposition and seven from the rump to my left. Records will show that during the clause by clause study members of Her Majesty's opposition have been remarkably restrained in their comments on the bill. The objections came from hon. members to my left when private enterprise was the subject for consideration. But will they speak out now in connection with an amendment which should commend itself to those who are as liberal in thought as hon. members sitting to my left?
The hon. member for York South described this as the "touchstone" of the bill. He does not know what he is talking about. The touchstone of the bill has already been considered-when we were seeking to define the terms of reference governing both the C.B.C.

DEBATES	January 30, 1968
and the private system in subclauses (d) and (e). The hon. member for Hochelaga gave a good example, from his point of view, of the difficulties this house gets into when trying to define what is good taste and what is poor taste. It appears he is against private enterprise because some of our private enterprise people in the back areas of the land, I take it, put on public opinion programs where you phone in-


Gérard Pelletier: I should like to make it clear to the hon. member that the programs I was mentioning are put out in Montreal.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I listen to the hon. member with respect when he talks about technical aspects of broadcasting because he, the hon. member for Winnipeg South and a number of other hon. members know more about technical aspects of it than I do. But this clause has nothing to do with technical matters. It concerns basic political philosophy.
I am not in favour of private enterprise unhampered by rules and regulations. But in line with the spirit of this amendment, I say that private enterprise should not concede its position to the national broadcasting system beforehand. Let us get the facts and then, if it comes within the terms of reference set out in the bill, the council will resolve the dispute. As things stand, any dispute would obviously be decided in favour of the national network. As I have pointed out, we already have an airways system competing with private enterprise and a railway system which does the same. Where, in the enabling statutes, is there such a clause as this which strikes at the very foundation of private enterprise in those fields? This is not a technical clause; it concerns one's basic political philosophy and this is why I believe any member can contribute to our discussion of a statute which says, in effect, that before all the facts are known matters in dispute are to be resolved in favour of the national service.
A great many of the comments made in this chamber during the last four or five days have been directed against the C.B.C. for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad. My comments on this clause have no relation to C.B.C. programs. While the hon. member for Hochelaga spoke eloquently he completely evaded the point I was making, which had nothing to do with the desirability or popularity of phone-in programs. If nothing else, these are programs which relieve frustration. If the hon. member had listened to Rawhide this morning he would understand that there
January 30, 1968

are many ways in which to get rid of frustration. While he himself might not like these programs, there are members on all sides of the house who do, and who do not like certain C.B.C. programs. However, programs have nothing to do with the point I am making and I was disappointed that the hon. member did not stick to the point. St. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus and the hon. member for Hochelaga has obviously been converted. But when he takes a position similar to that taken by the hon. member for York South, I would say his conversion has gone quite far enough.
I hope members of the committee will take a second look at the import of this clause which, I say, castrates the council in its dealings with disputes arising between the private and public sector.


Frank Howard: After listening to what has been, if you will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, a low-level speech by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings I can understand precisely what the hon. member for Athabasca meant when he began by saying that if you begin to lose an argument you get dirty.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 On) deals with the conflicts that could arise between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and those of the private broadcasting service. Therefore, we are talking about conflicts.
One thing is missing in that subclause. Should a conflict arise between the national broadcasting service and the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh)-who is responsible to the house for the management of the C.B.C.-who will settle the matter? If the minister charges that the C.B.C. is rotten and the management says that it is not so, who will decide where the rottenness is? There is nothing in that subclause which states what objectives and interests will prevail should such a conflict arise.
Recently, more conflicts arose between the C.B.C. and the Secretary of State than between the private sector and the corporation. We made no special provision at that time, but I should like to know whether the Secretary of State intends to include an amendment in subclause (h) providing for the creation of a body who would settle such conflicts. In the case of a conflict as the one I just mentioned, should the Secretary of State's interests prevail over those of the C.B.C., or should it be otherwise?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Hon. members will recall that the minister charged the C.B.C. with rotten management. There is no provision as to the way of solving this conflict.
Some machinery should be provided for the settlement of those conflicts, because doubts exist as to charges put forward by the minister against the C.B.C.
I wonder if it would not be advisable to include some provision in the bill. I see that the parliamentary secretary is motioning to me that it is useless to do so. Nevertherless, he knows quite well that conflicts are not restricted to private and public sectors. Why always leave the Canadian people doubtful? Canadians are now wondering where is the rot. The minister cannot say yes or no, because there is no provision, no machinery to settle the differences and the question, to wit: where and at what level is the rot.
I am therefore wondering whether we should not add to subclause (h) a provision, capable of anticipating any conflict liable to arise between the hon. Secretary of State and the C.B.C. I think it is important to prevent any recurrence of those disgraceful scenes which we have been witnessing recently, and it is imperative to try and find a way to settle them once and for all.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a minute or two to add a few comments to what has been said. I must admit that I agree entirely with my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I wish to speak on a rather technical point. Subclauses (d) and (g) set out in very broad general terms the objectives of the public broadcasting system. It seems to me that it will be impossible for the commission to make a decision in individual cases based upon these general objectives when we say, for example, in subclause (g) that the national broadcasting service should be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion. That wording is so broad that I believe it would make it impossible for a specific decision to be made in any case. In other words, how could the commission ever say that it had made its decision on the two conflicting points of view of the national broadcasting service and the interests of private broadcasting?
January 30, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I say that these words are so vague that they would not enable one to come to a fair conclusion. Therefore I believe the commission would have an impossible task in endeavouring to reach its decision on the objectives. This would seem to be a situation where we have nothing against nothing, when we attempt to reach a decision under subclause (h). In that case I can hardly see how the decision could be based on the objectives of the national broadcasting system, until these are spelled out. Obviously they will have to be spelled out in detail by the national broadcasting system. Therefore the broadcasting system will go before the board and say that in conformity with their general approach to a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment they feel that a certain situation must apply. If we should find that this is part of our objective and that this is the way it is applied, how could others hold a contrary view because they reached their decision under the umbrella of subclauses (d) and (g)?
Subclauses (d) and (g) were designed to express as clearly as possible what the objectives are, but they certainly were never set up to spell out particular cases or to give anyone the ability to say what is meant in a particular case. Surely subclauses (d) and (g) are very much like a statute which would say that the public broadcasting system may enact regulations, which regulations would spell out exactly what is meant. So in this case we have the ability of the national broadcasting service to spell out by regulation the case it is trying to put before the commission. I believe it would be an impossible and unfair task for the commission to attempt to make anything out of subclauses (d) and (g) in respect of a specific case, if the broadcasting system claimed that it was in the national interest.
Having reached this conclusion, it would be difficult for one to accept subclause (h) as it stands as representing the objectives of the national broadcasting service which should prevail, because there really is nothing on which to base a decision. Surely the national interests should prevail in such a case. I believe that in defining this one must take into consideration not only subclauses (d) and (g) but the whole situation. I think the subclause as it stands would permit an impossible situation. It would permit the national broadcasting service to declare its own objectives specifically, and therefore hamper any independent decision by the commission.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has identified a very important ingredient in this debate. He has isolated an element which some of us have been groping for and which some members farther to the left in this chamber believe has already been identified in the wording of the legislation as it potentially stands. The element to which I refer is the definition of the objectives of the national broadcasting service.
I cannot subscribe to the argument of the hon. member for York South, so far as the objectives of the national broadcasting service are concerned. I do not believe that the legislation as presently worded defines the objectives of the national broadcasting service. If it is our intention to isolate and articulate the objectives of the national broadcasting system, why do we not say so? We do not say so here. We say that there are several things the national broadcasting service should do. One is that it should constitute a balanced service of information; another is that it should be extended to all parts of Canada; another is that it should be in English and French and should contribute to a continued expression of Canadian identity.
I subscribe with the utmost enthusiasm to all these things, but this does not cover the whole area of philosophical thought, national preoccupation or the direction in which this country is moving in the whole area of broadcasting or in the area of creative or industrial activity.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This isolates four points in respect of which there should be guide lines for services performed by the C.B.C. These should be adhered to as principles, philosophies and means. Do these cover the application of national objectivity? Of course they do not. I can think of other areas of objectivity for the guidance of the C.B.C., or any other national broadcasting system. These are not covered by the wording of subclause (g). Subclause (g) does not purport to set out these objectives. It simply identifies four things that a national broadcasting system should either be or constitute. These are entirely acceptable to everyone in this chamber. No one is more enthusiastic about the provisions of that subclause than I am, but that does not mean they cover the whole realm of possibility so far as national broadcasting service is concerned. For these reasons I suggest the argument of the hon. member for York South is specious. I
January 30, 1968

think he has conveniently and intelligently evaded and avoided the point at issue here.
What we are talking about is the letter of the law. This is something we hear a great deal about in terms of our society, our legal system and our jurisprudence. The letter of the law is that when such and such a conflict arises, for time immemorial and from this day forward, the objective of a national service shall prevail. No matter what interpretation the hon. lady places on this; no matter what philosophy hon. members contrive to purport, and no matter what objectives members of the N.D.P. want to suggest, the fact is we are talking about the letter of the law. No matter what aspect arises in respect of a dispute regarding this whole matter, the main point of the debate on subclause (g), is that the authorities should follow the guide lines imposed by this parliament.
It may well be that someone will ask why they should.


An hon. Member:: And why should they?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: That is a very good question, and I should like to reply. Let me suggest to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that we are talking about a hypothetical idealistic situation which cannot exist. It is unrealistic to expect that in four or five years from now, when two litigants to a broadcasting dispute come before whatever authority might be in existence, the authority will be acquainted with the various aspects and convolutions of this debate, and the debate in committee before the legislation reached this stage. They are not going to be aware of the different philosophical approaches adopted during this debate, but they should not be deprived of the varying aspects of those approaches.
Earlier, the minister, when making a representation to my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops, asked if that member did not think the B.B.G. representatives who have sat in the gallery throughout this debate would get the point that we in the opposition are trying to make in the interest of the public. I think that was the substance of her question. This question begs the greater question namely, are we talking about the letter of the law? It does not really matter whether the representatives of the B.B.G. understand what we are talking about, but it does matter that future representatives of that body have guide lines based on our approach.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he propose to impose
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting on my generosity any further by asking to stand other clauses in order that he may be in the house to occupy our time during the consideration of this bill?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Let me just say in answer that if in the course of the examination of any legislation introduced by the hon. lady or any other minister we find a clause, subclause or paragraph in respect of which there is a vital interest at stake to my constituents or Canadians in general, I hope that we will be able to examine it to the fullest, and that no arbitrary or cursory rule will shut off such examination.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I suggest that you should be here in the future when these things are considered.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: As I said earlier today, I appreciate the indulgence the minister has shown me in respect of this particular subclause. I have made it clear that this is one part of the bill which disturbs me greatly. The minister must concede that a great number of members in this chamber, including some of her own colleagues, are also disturbed. I do not think we have resolved this point.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If you sit down we will do
so by a vote.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I will sit down when I have completed what I have to say. I should like to make reference to what the minister proposed earlier in the day, which could be termed a sort of amendment to the amendment, or a proposal to a change. I am sure the amendment originally moved is not acceptable to many members on this side. It imposes restrictions and constrictions such as those already contained in subclause (h). It would result in a disadvantage to private enterprise in this country to a more severe extent than the subclause as it now stands. I do not find the suggestion of the minister acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether we may assume that there is no change in the business of the house and that it is the intention to continue with this bill until it is concluded?


Mr. Turner:: Yes.
6192	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in 1960 a vocational and technical training act was approved by parliament to make up for the tragic gap in our educational facilities that had existed far too long. It was a great success, as has been witnessed by many, including the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who in a recent speech made the statement that during the last three months of 1966 and early in 1967, the monthly enrolment in these schools doubled compared to last year. Then he went on to say that such success, impressive as it might be, is not enough.
Unfortunately, the present government was not satisfied with this success and they brought in a new act on April 1, 1967. Since that time our technical training program has been in serious difficulty right across the country. It is not necessary for me, nor is there time, to recite all the difficulties, but they include the problem of drop-outs, which is one of our major educational problems; and the schools, notwithstanding the rising rate of unemployment, are only half full. In addition, the program costs more, which is mainly due to increasing administrative costs. The able bodied, who formerly were able to undergo technical retraining, are now back on the relief rolls. Students who took an upgrading course last year find they are not eligible this year for continued subsistence under the O.T.A. allowances program.
The real reason for the difficulty has been the failure of the federal government to consult with the provinces. In an attempt to get to the bottom of these problems I have found that even though the act was passed by this house last April, no agreement was put before the provinces until May, after the act was actually passed. I found, too, that the manpower department had bought more space than they were able to use, with the result that the program is not fulfilling the need, as I have indicated.
The specific problem to which I should like to refer tonight arises from a protest that arose during the Christmas period in the Manitoba technical school-
[Mr. Turner.!
DEBATES	January 30. 1968


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliaimentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the hon. member, but I should like to ask him a question. With regard to the specific question which I understand he is now going to raise, has he not received a reply from the minister? If so, was he satisfied with the contents of that reply? I believe the minister replied to the hon. member's question, and also to the students involved at the technical school at Brandon. I understand that replies were sent out, which I believe corrected the situation. I just wanted the hon. member's comments on this.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In reply to the interjection of the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I did receive a reply. I have not yet stated the problem. Perhaps I had better state it before answering the parliamentary secretary's question. The specific difficulty arose immediately before Christmas because it was announced that the allowances would not be paid during the Christmas recess. Several hon. members raised this question. Then hard on the heels of this withdrawal of assistance was a holdback, during the first week after Christmas, of one week's allowance to build up a sort of emergency fund to take care of any eventualities that might arise.
I did contact the minister suggesting that this holdback might be delayed until such time as the students could recoup their fortunes. The wire I received from the minister was in the following words:
I appreciate your point concerning arrangements for payment of training allowances following the Christmas recess. This action is being implemented gradually during January to minimize trainees difficulties.
When I returned to Ottawa a headline appeared in the Brandon Sun as follows, "Students Denounce Allowance Holdback Scheme." It was dated January 18 after my wire, dated January 12, was received. My question to the minister the other day was whether he had received this protest from the 200 students at the Manitoba vocational and technical school in Brandon, and if so what reply had been given or what action he had taken to resolve this difficulty. I could read the specific points which were raised by the students in their protest but I do not think it is necessary. All that I wish to have at this time is an assurance that the students' protest was dealt with. According to this newspaper
January 30, 1968

article, they also sent a wire. I should like to know what action was taken to resolve this difficulty.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member I should like to say that undeniably we have been experiencing some difficulty in administration, but we believe that the problem has been largely ironed out and that the living allowance cheques are getting there on time now. We believe that the explanation we gave to the students involved was satisfactory, and we doubt there will be a recurrence of this problem; we certainly hope there will not be.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT-INQUIRY CONCERNING STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Labour Gazette published an article which has caused considerable but perhaps quiet excitement in some corners of the country, due to the fact that on a rare occasion in its history it published in toto the speech of an official of the Department of Labour, the highly respected Bernard Wilson, the assistant deputy minister (labour relations) of the Department of Labour. This was a speech he gave to a panel of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation at its twenty sixth annual conference in Ottawa, held last September. Perhaps there is nothing in the introduction to that speech which would generate special excitement, but at the end of his speech the assistant deputy minister made the following suggestion which is to be found at page 13 of that issue of the Labour Gazette:
The following extra provision, added to existing federal or provincial labour legislation, might be considered in seeking less labour unrest while giving recognition to rights that a large part of labour consider fundamental.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 21 and 22 of this act (the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act), where a strike or lockout has taken place and has been in effect for 14 days from the date of its inception, the governor in council may, if the strike or lockout imperils the safety or security of Canada or the economic welfare and livelihood of great numbers of its citizens, other than those participating directly in the strike or lockout, promulgate regulations for the resumption of operations by the employer and by the employees, and for the final settlement of the dispute without further strike or lockout.
To forestall the inevitable objection that the government will be brought into every important dispute in essential industry, it should be pointed out that that situation exists now. In further
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion extenuation, it can also be argued that, where great questions of public interest, critical national or regional economic loss and the exercise of human rights are concerned, there are few matters of more importance to governments, and more deserving of their time.
Indeed, the gentleman is right; this is one of the big issues of our time, namely how far the government interferes or intervenes in questions of disputes. I checked the latest speech of my friend from the Dalhousie University law school, the Minister of Labour, delivered to the University of Western Ontario law forum on January 27 and found that his position does not come up to that of Mr. Wilson.
On that occasion he said:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The government's role surely should be a conciliatory and a mediatory one, a role that will bring the disputants together and encourage them to find a formula for settlement less costly to their immediate and separate interest than the continuation of their rigid positions would be.
In essence then, the optimum role and the responsibility of government is to continue to hold available to disputants suitable procedural machinery to enable them to find their own solutions within a reasonable period of time.
Later on in that same speech, the minister had this to say:
Because a whole new range of puzzling problems is arising in industrial relations today, I visualize -and have been planning for-a new role for my department. No longer shall we be merely the referees: now we are taking and will continue to take anticipatory initiatives. Since the very existence of our conciliation branch presupposes a possible breakdown of collective bargaining, I would view it as the greatest achievement of a Minister of Labour to make it an unnecessary part of what is now my department.
Our emphasis should-and I hope will-change to becoming a trusted and "honest broker" before real trouble breaks out. We should become fire prevention officers, not firefighters.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably enough difference in these points of view to indicate that this is a matter of some considerable public concern, and something which will be debated in Canada no doubt over the next five or ten years. In view of this fact, I thought I would pose a question to the minister to see if his philosophy leans one way or the other or whether Mr. Bernard Wilson was merely floating a very large balloon, the largest balloon I have seen floated by a civil servant in Canada. I am endeavouring to ascertain whether Mr. Wilson was expressing something which will eventually become government policy.
January 30, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When the question was put a few days ago by my hon. friend, I thought my parliamentary secretary gave a very good answer. He said emphatically and unequivocally that no legislation such as that suggested in the question was in contemplation. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a word of explanation as to how the article came to be published would be of interest. There is an organization in Canada known as the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation. The membership consists of the federal deputy minister and the ten provincial deputy ministers of labour. They, and their senior officials, meet annually to discuss matters or to think out loud about what may or may not be done to improve labour-management relations in this country.
Last year's meeting that took place in Ottawa in September last was the one in which the assistant deputy minister, to whom reference has been made by my hon. friend put forward as a suggestion the one referred to by my hon. friend, amongst a number of other suggestions. It so happens one of the western provinces, Alberta I think, has legislation similar to that which was suggested as something that might be considered by the group attending this conference. The suggestion was put forward merely as something that might be considered by those in attendance. There are a number of other suggestions in the paper.
One of those suggestions was that the right to strike might even be extended on certain occasions rather than curtailed, which is the exact antithesis of what was covered in the question raised by my hon. friend. I assure my hon. friend and others that these meetings which are held regularly, and I have been following them now for over two years, are really worth while. They are stimulating. This provocative paper which was presented by the assistant deputy minister was one of several put forward to provoke discussion. I wish we had a lot more discussions of that kind. The paper was so good the editor of the Labour Review published the article almost in toto. Therein lies the explanation for the article and how it came to be published.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Wednesday, January 31, 1968