1968-01-25

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday several
members were inquiring about copies of correspondence between the Prime Minister and various provincial premiers in respect of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. I am now in a position to table these.
Kon. R. A. Bell (Carleton): Mr. Speaker, the practice in respect of correspondence with the provinces has been to have the letters printed as an appendix to Hansard. I think in view of the importance of the forthcoming conference, this practice should be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then, with the consent of the house I should like to table copies of certain correspondence between the Prime Minister and various provincial premiers in respect of the conference.


Mr. Siarr:: And they should be made an appendix to Hansard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to have them printed as an appendix to Hansard.
[Editor's Note: For correspondence above referred to, see Appendix.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiif (Oxford):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that by a declaration made on August 7, 1953, all 16 allied countries involved in the Korean war are pledged to resist unprovoked aggression
promptly and in unison? If so, what position is now being taken by the Canadian government with respect to the armed seizure on the high seas of the United States ship Pueblo by units of the North Korean navy?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Acting Prime Minister):: I am not in a position to answer the specific question raised by the hon. gentleman but I can say we are following with interest developments in connection with this very serious matter. Communications with our allies continue. This is a matter of great concern directly to the United States because they are the ones involved. They are exercising, I think, caution and restraint in their approach.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that the Minister of Transport who is acting as prime minister today might have been taken somewhat unawares by my question, though I did try to give him notice. This is a serious subject and I am wondering whether the Acting Prime Minister might not be in a position later this day to ask the house for leave to revert to motions and make a statement informing us whether or not the government is bound by this declaration, to which we are a party, to come to the aid of the United States or South Korea should further unprovoked hostilities take place, or should the United States attempt to liberate the USS Pueblo.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Even if I were able to get the
information requested during the course of the afternoon I am not sure that I would be in a position to make a statement. This involves, I would suspect, a question of the interpretation of an agreement. I also believe that the allegation that this incident occurred in international waters would be relevant, and I certainly would not wish to express what would amount to a legal opinion on the subject.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister telling the house that the government is not satisfied that this seizure was made in international waters?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. I said the allegation was made that it was, and that is what I believe to have been the case.

January 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: As preparation for possible heavy responsibilities in the future, would the Acting Prime Minister not take this opportunity to get some additional information for the house right now before the question period is over, and let the house and the Canadian people know exactly what are the facts about the situation internationally which is, apparently, very grave?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be delighted to give to the hon. gentleman and to the house all possible information, but this is a subject of such magnitude that even if I were to attempt to spend the next few minutes seeking to amplify my own inadequate knowledge I am not sure I could satisfy the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee on external affairs. It is prompted by recent allegations made by Dr. Vennema in Viet Nam, when he was there under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs, concerning the use of poison gas by the United States military forces in Viet Nam. I should like to ask whether Dr. Vennema is being summoned as a witness before the standing committee so that this serious matter may be looked into further.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Has
the Canadian government received any official information from the United States government with regard to the call-up of some 14,000 reservists and the purposes and implications of such a move in connection with the seizure of USS Pueblo? Can he tell us whether any of our NORAD stations have been placed on an accelerated alert as a result of these developments?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of Naiional Defence):: To answer those questions, I may say, first of all, that as far as I am aware the Department of National Defence has not been

informed of the call up of 14,000 reservists. Next, I am informed that no special alert has been declared by the NORAD stations.



TRANSFER OF MILITARY BAND FROM CAMP GAGETOWN TO DOWNSVIEW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize to him for not having advised him of my intention to ask this question but perhaps he will take it as notice. Has the minister received representations and protests concerning the removal of the last major military band in Camp Gagetown, the Royal Canadian Dragoons band, to the Downsview air base. If so, would he be prepared to advise us of the answer he gave to these protests?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this important question should be placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council with respect to the report of the task force on foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy. Now that the minister has received the report, and I assume this report has been discussed in cabinet, is it the minister's intention to make the report public?


Hon. Waller Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the French translation has been obtained, the report, in both languages, will be tabled in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the government also intends to prepare a white paper indicating its intentions with respect to the recommendations contained in this report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the report, which is a very voluminous document, the government reached the conclusion that it would be best to table it immediately rather than to delay its publication.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Finance expressing government policy when he stated in Winnipeg on
January 25, 1968



Friday that Canada must welcome development capital from outside its borders to guarantee the industrialization of much of the country, particularly the west?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am certain he was speaking on behalf of the government when he said that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is agreed by everyone that we have to have additional assistance, due to our inadequate supply of development capital, but this does not mean that there cannot be room for difference of opinion as to the form the infusion of this capital should take, and that there cannot be room for reasonable argument as to what the rules of engagement should be and the terms under which those using it should be good corporate Canadian citizens.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. Does he agree with what the Acting Prime Minister has stated is government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. He said that the report was to be made public but he did not answer the question as to whether or not, subsequent to making the report public, the government intends to issue a white paper setting forth its views on the matter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the government's views, Mr. Speaker, will become apparent in due course. I am not convinced myself that in addition to making the report public anything much would be gained by spending perhaps another considerable number of months in preparing a white paper. The government's intentions as to future procedure will be made known-


Some hon. Members:: In due course.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -will be made known at the time the report is tabled.



POSSIBLE IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF IMPORT SURCHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since learning yesterday of the report from Washington that the United States government is considering the imposition of import surcharges as a means of helping to
Inquiries of the Ministry correct its balance of payments, has the minister been in touch with the United States government to learn whether this report is true and, if it is, has he advised the United States government that any such action will immediately be matched by Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had inquiries made in Washington and I cannot ascertain that that is the intention of the United States government.



YUKON-RESTORATION OF CUT-BACKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises as a result of certain assurances given by the minister on Monday last, through the commissioner of the Yukon to the legislative council of the Yukon, to the effect that he would be requesting the standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development to meet with the council to discuss constitutional changes for the Yukon.
In order to eliminate existing doubts, will the minister assure the people of the Yukon that the cut-backs, totalling approximately $13 million, of federal government money will be restored to the government of the Yukon forthwith, now that the council has passed the taxing legislation upon which the minister had insisted?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the so-called cut-backs were the result of repudiation by council of an agreement made here with me. I told them the agreement would become effective on the date when they undertook to respect the agreement they made in Ottawa. They have now done that, so the agreement which we made in respect of funds coming forward from us will date from the day when they accepted their undertaking.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question which is intended for clarification. Are the people of the Yukon then to understand that all the so-called cut-backs will in fact be restored now that the necessary taxing legislation has been passed including the cost sharing program under the agreement?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the council of the Yukon is fully aware of the undertaking I

January 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry gave and which, they accepted at that time. I believe they have now agreed, with only one person objecting, that they should have lived up to the agreement they undertook when they were in Ottawa.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question. What I am seeking here is an assurance for the people of the territory. All I am asking the minister is whether he can assure the people of the Yukon that the so-called cut-backs, to use his own term, will be restored pursuant to the provision of the agreement, which was met, and now that the council has in fact passed the taxing legislation?


Arthur Laing: Our agreement stands. We have kept it, and it will date from the time they voted to respect the agreement they made. I believe that was on Monday. I am delighted that the impasse, which the hon. member reported to this house, in respect of our relations with the council has now been broken.



GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION PROJECT-FAILURE TO APPROVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question concerning this matter of federal cost-sharing cut-backs, and I should like to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this is actually a supplementary question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is relative to the same subject of federal cost-sharing referred to by the hon. member for Yukon, Your Honour. I address my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would this federal cost-sharing cut-back arrangement be the reason the Grand River conservation project has not been approved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.



POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS TO FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him whether it is his intention in the present session of parliament to introduce amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which would provide higher interest loans by the banks.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer

that question today since I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with my colleagues.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question for clarification. Could the minister explain what he meant yesterday when he expressed the hope that in the meantime banks would continue to give their customary support to this program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated clearly in my answer to the question yesterday that the government does propose to bring forward amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which will help to maintain the volume, although I would like to repeat what I said yesterday that the decline has not been as great as has sometimes been represented.



CUT-BACK IN FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Could he inform the house whether or not the government has intimated to the provinces that there has been or will be a cut-back in the current cost sharing agreements with the various provincial governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncertain as to the exact purport of the hon. gentleman's question. Would he repeat it in a more specific form?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thought my question was quite specific. I am asking whether the government has intimated to the provinces that there will be a cut-back in the federal government's contribution to the cost sharing agreements.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are many cost sharing agreements. During the recent meetings that I had with provincial ministers of finance I asked for the co-operation of the provinces in controlling expenditures. That, of course, meant that where federal and provincial governments were sharing costs we hoped there would be co-operation between us.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question. The minister asked me to be specific. I wonder whether I could ask him to be specific. Is he saying that there has been no
January 25, 1968
cut-back in the federal contribution to these cost sharing agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question three times now, and I think it is time we went on to another question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me to be specific, and I am wondering whether he would be specific as well. Is he saying there has been no cut-back to the federal contributions in the cost sharing agreements?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman is being very mysterious. If he has a specific case in mind, I would be prepared to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might go on to some different specific questions.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Following a study by British scientists in London of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, a report was issued stating that shotguns, captive bolt pistols and the use of strychnine poison in the killing of seals should be banned, and the shooting of seal pups by rifle from a boat forbidden. In view of the fact that the killing of seals should be done as humanely as possible, did the minister or his officials study the British report before authorizing tests to use a 410 gauge shotgun during the hunting season which opens in March?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report made by the British scientists was studied and I was delighted to see that they are taking practically the same attitude as we are taking here in Canada. With respect to the experiment we will be carrying on during the seal season in March, the Ontario Humane Society has provided us with a different type of weapon. We have agreed to try it on a limited scale and our officials will be accompanied by a veterinarian and by a representative of the
S.P.C.A. during the hunt. We will then be able to determine the effect of such a weapon.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister's announcement stated that the decision to make the tests followed a recent meeting by the department
Inquiries of the Ministry with representatives of the Ontario Humane Society, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Defence Research Board and the National Research Council. Has the minister consulted with officials of the sealing industry on this matter and will the sealing industry officials be present when the minister's shotgun policy goes into effect?


Mr. Robichaud:: I do not think it would be right to call it the minister's shotgun policy because the minister is practically convinced that the use of the shotgun will not be too effective in this kind of operation. I thought, however, that it was advisable to try this new type of weapon with limited power as an experiment. The members of the sealing industry are aware of this experiment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since it is necessary in the national interest that the highest value for the seal pelts be obtained, will the hit or miss methods practised by seal killers operating from private planes be stopped or regulated?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think I have already made it clear that it was our intention to control or limit the operation of airplanes during the seal hunt. I would hope that this year no new licences will be issued. Also, due to the fact that the opening of the season is delayed by ten days this by itself will limit the operations by planes.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Is he now in a position to answer my question?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, who is attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture today, I may say that meetings have been held with national and provincial representatives of the milk producers and farmers organizations as well as with the provincial milk marketing authorities to discuss short and long term dairy policy.



January 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry GREENHOUSE PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION AGAINST LOW COST IMPORTS
On the orders of the day:


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I also reply to the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Kent, (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) regarding representations made by the greenhouse industry with regard to protection against low cost imports. Since the action that has been requested would be a matter of policy, any decision will be announced in the usual way. In the meantime the hon. member will be aware that this whole question has also been referred to the tariff board for study.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of definite national significance and of importance to people interested in saving lives and I should like to direct it to the Acting Prime Minister who is the Minister of Transport. This is of concern to people in the district, from which I come, because of the loss of private aircraft.
In view of the unfortunate loss of life in the operation of private aircraft, and the extremely high cost of search and rescue operations, has the minister given consideration to regulations which would require that all private aircraft carry a rescue beacon transmitter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question has been considered several times, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge, and I would have to check this, no decision to make this mandatory has as yet been made. This involves the question of cost and the question also of the reliability of the instruments. However, with more recent developments they seem to be quite useful for certain types of aircraft. If my hon. friend would like a more lengthy reply I will have to take his question as notice.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious benefits both to those who might be lost in aircraft and those sent out to search lost aircraft, would the minister not press his colleagues to see that this measure is brought in as a government regulation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making representations to the government.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: May I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker? Since almost four months have passed since the minister assured the house that a special joint committee on the national capital would be established very shortly, to use his own words, will the minister indicate the reason for the delay in announcing this long awaited study, and let us know what are the government's present intentions? Would the minister also indicate whether the committee will be asked to study the subject of high-rise buildings in the vicinity of these parliament buildings?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question of setting up the committee was delayed because there was no chairman of the National Capital Commission. The chairman has now been appointed, so there is no reason for any further delay. As to the second question, I would hope that the committee would deal with the problem of the height of buildings to be built in the national capital area close to the parliament buildings. This problem is causing great concern to the government and, as the hon. member knows, the federal authority does not have direct jurisdiction over it.


Richard Albert Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate the name of the new chairman of the National Capital Commission and when he was appointed?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The new chairman is Mr. A. J. Frost, and the appointment was announced today.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now in position to answer my question of yesterday as to whether the government will be making a statement of its views regarding the proposal to construct a 39 storey building within two or three blocks of this building?
January 25, 1968


George James McIlraith: The government has no direct control over this matter but there is a committee having jurisdiction over it-a committee of the city of Ottawa. The government has representation on this committee through the National Capital Commission, and its views will be made known in the usual way to the committee. The problem is of real concern to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not prepared to indicate what the views of the government are with respect to this proposed building?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any responsible minister should give an off-the-cuff answer like that until he has the advice of the planners who are retained by the government, through the National Capital Commission, which has direct responsibility. I think the position should be stated after a thorough study of the matter by them.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I would remind the house, with regard to the problem of high-rise buildings, that the national capital and its buildings are welcome in Halifax. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in light of the increased activity in the middle and upper reaches of the St. Lawrence river up as far as Montreal, he would now give assurance to the ports of Halifax and Saint John that this is indeed for water control purposes and not for economic reasons involving ships of other nations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the events of the last few days underline the absolute essentiality of keeping the St. Lawrence river open and free from ice so that the water levels do not rise as they have, endangering public property. These are the facts. At the same time, when a channel is open it is available for use by ships that are constructed in such a way that they are capable of operating under those conditions.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it government policy that
Inquiries of the Ministry once such lanes are opened up they are maintained in an open condition for the purpose of shipping? Is this what the Acting Prime Minister is indicating?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that as my hon. friend is probably aware, the water levels in the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence river are well above the normal level, and this endangers property to a considerable extent. It is absolutely essential that a channel be maintained in order to allow the ice to go down river and to reduce water levels to those that are safe. At the same time, when this is done it does facilitate navigation on the St. Lawrence river by ships which are constructed to operate under winter conditions.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Now that the Minister of Transport is aware of the need to maintain an open channel on the St. Lawrence in wintertime, does he intend to instruct his departmental officials to make sure that this channel is really kept open instead of merely watching out for ice-jams?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question the purpose of which is to elicit information. Does the minister know how many hundreds of ships were stuck in the St. Lawrence this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the increasing importance of the problem of winter navigation and icebreaking operation on the St. Lawrence, could the minister tell us whether he intends soon to make a clear and straightforward statement on the policy of his department with regard to this problem?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not there will be a clear and precise statement, but I can assure my hon. friend that we intend to open up the channel

January 25. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry and to do our best to keep it open so that the ice can get out to sea.
[Translation^


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I notice that the minister always speaks of ice and never of ships. Could he make a clear and definite statement concerning winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, and not only on ice?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be glad to take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a last supplementary question.
I would like to know whether the minister will take that into consideration before or after the forthcoming Liberal convention.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PILOTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister of Transport. Is he able to indicate to the house when he expects the report of the commission on pilotage to be tabled?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Very soon, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped it would be ready by now, but I will make inquiries to see when it will be available.



SYDNEY, N.S.-INQUIRY AS TO PILOTAGE STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, approximately two days prior to the recess I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding the department's intention with regard to the future of the pilotage station in Sydney harbour, and the employees there. At that time he took it as notice. Is he in a position now to give an answer to the question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer with me today, but I will try to remember to bring it tomorrow.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to increased freight rates for the shipment of potash from the province of Saskatchewan to export markets. Could the minister take this matter up with the head of the Canadian Transport Commission, Hon. Mr. Pickersgill, since these freight rate increases will work to the detriment of an industry which could be the leading producer of potash in the world?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.



UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us whether his department is investigating reports that unidentified flying objects have been reported over certain areas in the eastern townships in the province of Quebec?


Michael Starr: They are Liberal candidates in the leadership race.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not certain that the matter is one of extreme urgency. In any case the hon. member has made a representation to the minister which, in all probability, will be considered.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he has as yet had discussions with officials of Air Canada regarding the base in Winnipeg. If so can he now assure the employees in Winnipeg that the base will continue to operate, as he indicated recently, and that the large scale transfer of employees from Winnipeg will stop?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have been working assiduously on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
January 25, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Straih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether he can tell us why copies of the Murchison inquiry report have not been distributed to members of parliament while apparently they have been in the hands of the public for some time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, but I will take notice of the question to see if I can find out the answer.



ACCELERATED RATE ON FARM STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the Minister of Finance is now in full orbit, I wonder whether he has had time to decide and to announce if farmers are to be given an accelerated rate on farm storage built during the year 1967.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will give an answer to this question tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: The minister will give the answer on re-entry.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, but in his understandable absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary would draw it to his attention, or even be daring enough to answer it. Was the assistant deputy minister of labour, Mr. Wilson, forecasting government policy when he suggested that an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act might be considered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order. Whereas it is in order to ask whether statements made by ministers outside the house represent government policy, it is not my understanding that this applies to officials of departments.
5947
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a log jam developing, or perhaps I should call it an ice jam. Perhaps I can rephrase my question and ask whether it is the intention of the government to bring in an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that the government could halt a strike or lockout after 14 days, and take other measures to end the dispute?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if the government has such intentions I am sure it will notify the house in the usual and appropriate manner.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. When can we expect to receive the report of the task force set up by the Prime Minister to study the Freedman report, and is it the intention of the minister to delay second reading of Bill No. C-186 until this report is received and studied?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour made it abundantly clear on at least three occasions last week that it is not the intention of the government to delay the passage of Bill No. C-186 for any reason.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have any prior knowledge of the recommendations of the task force, and if so, was Bill No. C-186 drafted to lessen the power of the existing bargaining units before the recommendations are made public?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of Premier Robarts' statement concerning the position of
5948	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the government of Ontario with respect to medicare, will the federal government make it clear that medicare is still the law of the land and will come into effect on July 1, 1968, in those provinces that wish to accept it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is the law of the land, and the position of the federal government is as set out by the Prime Minister at his press conference on January 19.



UNITED NATIONS-POSITION OF CANADA ON L.S.D. BAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary and she may take the question as notice. Is Canada a member of the United Nations commission on narcotics and, if so, did Canada approve the resolution appealing for a world wide ban on the use of L.S.D.?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 24, 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.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2(d), with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer, was under consideration. Clause 2(c) was allowed to stand in order to permit the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to redraft an amendment which he had proposed during yesterday's sitting. The committee is now considering clause 2(d).
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment briefly on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
yesterday, it has been a long time since I found myself in a position to agree with anything put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. However, after ten years in this house I suppose one does mellow somewhat toward those who support other political groups, and after reading his amendment I am prepared to vote for it. I say this because I believe that the words "while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate consideration" and the words "while alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming" serve to strengthen the original clause of the bill.
The government apparently believed that it should include in the bill under the general title of a broadcasting policy for Canada a clause which deals with programming. To those of us who on occasion have an opportunity to watch television, and especially some of the C.B.C. programs, this is understandable. We know that there is a wide variety of opinion regarding what is desirable and acceptable and that this applies to the theatre, to motion pictures, to music and the arts. What is classed as acceptable music by this generation would certainly not have been acceptable only a decade ago. I know the minister will agree with me that Viennese waltzes seem strangely out of place alongside Beatle rhythms. It is therefore evident that tastes, habits and customs change, and a medium like television, which is catering to age groups from the cradle to the grave, is bound to find difficulty in providing a bill of fare that is satisfactory to everyone. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I believe we are entitled and are expected to voice our opinions on programming so that those in charge of these matters will be aware of the voice of the people, as it were, expressed through their elected representatives.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The government has suggested that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy, and that the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of a high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources. These are good guide lines, Mr. Chairman, and have without doubt been laid down by the government because of difficulties experienced by the C.B.C. management in arranging programs in the past. We would not have such lengthy discussions
January 25, 1968

in the house or the committee had there not been considerable public discontent about the programs which the C.B.C. has presented in the past. After reading the guide lines I see no reason for rejecting the amendment that the hon. member for Red Deer has moved. I see no reason for rejecting a similar amendment if it informs C.B.C. management what our thoughts, as members of this house, are on that important matter.
A moment ago I spoke of the differences in our society and of the difficulty that is faced by C.B.C. management in preparing a bill of fare that is suitable for everyone. It is crystal clear that we have in Canada differences in languages, customs, tastes, habits, and in age groups. Nevertheless, it is truly amazing to see how similar Canadians of all groups are to people in other parts of the world. For example, applying the golden rule of doing unto others what we would have them do unto us, if we show concern, courtesy, kindliness or anger, sympathy or compassion, each will be returned in kind. Perhaps we ought to put that on the record as a guide line for those who are responsible for the programs.
Had this rule been followed, then surely we should not have been subjected to a parody of God last Sunday evening by a group of paid performers. That type of sick comedy apparently is indicative of the rot which has set in in the C.B.C., as mentioned some time ago by the minister. This type of comedy, in my opinion, is not funny it offends the Christian teaching of thousands of years and can only arouse in those who watch it pity for the producer of sponsor of the program. Surely, Mr. Chairman, with all the political and potential political leaders in this country we could use them or others as the butt of humour. We should not use characters in the Bible.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: From time to time we are told that as politicians we should not interfere with the programming of the C.B.C. We are told that the C.B.C. ought to be free from political interference and that it should remain free and uncontrolled so that it will not become the tool of the political party in power. I And no fault with that logic. But I caution those who are responsible for programming that freedom of thought and expression must not be construed as licence, licence to say, do, or portray anything and everything that comes to mind.
The estimates for the C.B.C. this year exceed $143 million, an increase of about $29
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting million in one year. Canadians generally, whether they are of French, English, German, Italian, Norwegian, Scottish, Irish or other origins, as a rule want good value for their money. Canadians today are asking themselves, not only with respect to expenditures by C.B.C. but with respect to many other expenditures that are made by this government, are we getting value for our money? If the C.B.C. were operating as a private concern it would have gone broke by now.
When I was first elected in 1957 the C.B.C. was spending more than $52 million a year of the taxpayers' money. I thought then that more than $1 million a week to subsidize this organization was too much to pay. Today the subsidy is almost three times as big. I caution those who are responsible for programming to ask themselves in future: Is this program entertaining, is it acceptable to the Canadian people, as well as: Is it good value for our money, and can we afford it?
I realize that we need creative minds in the C.B.C. That organization has done much that is commendable. I temper that comment with a caution that creativity does not give a programmer the right to be irresponsible, the right to deal in sensationalism or to show programs that are in bad taste. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I intend, when the vote is called, to support the hon. member's amendment.


Mr. Soulham:: 
Mr. Choqueiie:: Mr. Chairman, the only remark I would like to make deals with clause 2(e) which reads as follows:
-all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting services in English and French as public funds become available;
Mr. Chairman, I claim that funds are available for the installation of relay stations in order to ensure-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What has this to do with it? [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: We are considering clause 2. I am therefore speaking to that clause. There is no division since we are dealing with clause 2.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
You stated yourself that we are studying that clause a subclause at a time. An amendment has been moved to subclause (d). Therefore, when the hon. member for Lotbiniere speaks to subclause (e), he is not in order.
[English\


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should say to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that the agreement in committee was to discuss clause 2 subclause by subclause. The subclause now before us is 2(d). As I said the other evening, I believe that in line with the agreement reached, the Chair should confine speakers to the subject matter of the subclause, in this case, 2(d).
January 25. 19G8	COMMONS DEBATES


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I was unaware of that agreement and I thank you for your comments. I will wait till the next clause to discuss the matter.


Gilles Grégoire: You only had to be here to know about it.


Auguste Choquette: I am here just as often if not more often than the hon. member.


Mr. Germa:: Mr. Chairman, I come to this house as somewhat of a puritan because the constituency I represent has not had access to the pornography, sex and glue-sniffing which seems to have been going on in C.B.C. programs. I should like to make representations to the minister at this time to the effect that we would welcome these programs in the city of Sudbury. I say this because we are now captives of another form of dictatorship, that of a private television outlet which is proving altogether inadequate for the needs of this community. The provisions of 2 (d) would, I think, go a long way toward deterring private broadcasters from muzzling certain minority groups which have not the financial strength or power necessary to get their message over to the 200,000 people who are held captive by this one private station.
As has already been stated, the amendment will not be supported by members of this party. It implies that because an opinion is held by a majority it is necessarily a correct one and should therefore receive wide coverage. The democratic process itself shows us that a majority of the people have the right to be wrong any time they choose. Today we are faced with a situation which has arisen because a majority of the people have elected a government which you and I know does not represent the best choice which could have been made, and it does not necessarily follow that a decision of this type should be given wide publicity.
I should like to call the minister's attention to something which happened in connection with the private station in Sudbury. Representations were made to the Board of Broadcast Governors in 1965 after a union of which I am a member found its programs over this television station arbitrarily cut off by the board of directors simply because in their minds and in their minds only the union was propagating a political opinion. As a matter of fact, it turned out to be the majority opinion in the city of Sudbury though at that time the party to which I belong was in a minority
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting position there. The directors of the television station say fit to muzzle the expression of this political opinion. However, various measures were taken to get round this roadblock and in the end it so happened that the people did elect a member of this party to represent the city of Sudbury.
I believe that subclause (d) will go a long way toward letting people know that when they are in positions of authority in the communications field it is their responsibility to see that controversial and minority opinions are not suppressed. I do not agree with anyone who says that subclause (d) should be eliminated altogether. I believe it represents a progressive step, and we certainly hope it will be retained.
It has been said, regarding the position taken by the New Democratic party, that we always jump to the forefront to protect bandits and atheists in the C.B.C. The hon. member for Roberval, who made this statement, really does not understand what the N.D.P. wishes to accomplish. Who else pursues bandits as vigorously as members of the New Democratic party? We shall pursue them on television as well as in the streets. We do not protect bandits whether they are in the C.B.C. or not. I am thinking now about bandits in business and in insurance companies. Not every bandit carries a gun. Some of them wear tuxedos but they are bandits none the less.
I would ask the minister to take my words into consideration as representing a request from the 200,000 people in Sudbury. We would welcome the type of programs provided by the C.B.C. I hope she will impress on the board that the people of Sudbury contribute to the corporation's budget and are entitled to the facilities afforded. This service is needed regardless of the extent to which other hon. members say they do not want it. Indeed, I would be glad to see the corporation dismantle one of the stations which certain hon. members say they do not want and ship it to Sudbury, because we could certainly use it there.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, most members of the committee probably wish to say something on the clause before us. I doubt that there is a single question on which most of us have received more mail than the subject of programming both in the private and public sector of the radio and television networks. I have reviewed a number of the speeches made to see whether a pattern emerges, to find out why hon. members are in favour of
5952	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting or against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Many said that to their surprise they found themselves in agreement with him, although some were not quite sure of their ground on that score. I for one am naturally inclined to take a very suspicious look at any amendment moved by the hon. member because I have found his judgment has not been too much of a guide on any question that has come up in this house.


Mr. Thompson:: Not to your party.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think a few words will indicate the general trend of some of the speakers in support of the amendment. They want to play down the emphasis on what I will call the kooky people, the far-out fringe. They want to have more emphasis placed on broad opinions generally held by the public and less on the lunatic fringe. They say that on grounds of morality we need to have more emphasis on the respectability of broadcasting and that we want to prevent the appearance of such people as nazis. Those who have been against the amendment have used such phrases as "restrictive amendment," "amounting to censorship," "trying to destroy freedom," "conformist amendment." On the one hand, we have those people who feel that the respectability of Canadian viewers and their sense of what is moral and decent are outraged too often by certain programs that are presented. On the other hand, those against the amendment have taken the stand that anyone who wants to protect people from this sort of thing is simply protectionist and is restricting freedom. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit of truth on both sides.
Any time we suggest that parliament should give a directive to our national broadcasting system as to the type of programming we would prefer we can say that by the weight of the opinion of parliament we are trying to censor and restrict freedom of choice to some extent. However, there is no such thing as black and white. There is, of course, a middle ground in this matter and, on the basis of the remarks made by various speakers as well as my own opinion, I really feel that what is irksome to most people is the tremendous impact made by so many far-out programs. The fact is that one or two programs have been so very unacceptable that the shock of that sort of thing has made members forget how many programs do conform to the ordinary respectability and moral sense of the citizens of Canada.

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
I have often thought about the line of censorship that broadcasters should use to guide themselves lest they use the airwaves in a distasteful manner. As an ordinary citizen this is my feeling on the matter. If over that medium of entertainment during the late hours of the evening there comes a program in which the subject is handled in such a way that myself, my wife and a group of rather sophisticated friends watching it would feel shocked and offended if any of our group used such language or talked in such a manner as on the television program, then in my view that program is not very fit entertainment for a group of sophisticated people. If it is too lewd or disreputable for sophisticated, broadminded people, and I think I am pretty broadminded, then we must look closely at the reasons for presenting that program. Are they crusading for something? Is it necessary public instruction? If it is necessary public instruction, is this the proper medium for that public instruction? Obviously on some of these grounds we cannot justify some of these programs.
I think one of the difficulties is that broadcasting and success in broadcasting are in some respects like politics. The more publicity you get and the greater the sensation you create the bigger your name is. This seems to be the badge of success in that medium to some extent.
I am the last one in this chamber to want to add any form of censorship. I think that the aim of this bill should not be compulsory but advisory in this regard, and I feel that the present wording of the clause goes about as far as we can in this regard when it refers to conflicting views on matters of public controversy. Surely that is not, as the mover of the amendment seems to feel a suggestion that the medium should be used to raise public controversy, to try to bring something out of an obscure dark room that nobody is thinking about and have it discussed and raised in a manner that offends the sensibilities of many Canadians.
I do not think there can be any complete directive on this matter of public controversy. As well as offering entertainment television is a news medium. If a subject is of any importance to the nation and has an impact on our economic or cultural life, television should not miss an opportunity to bring as many aspects of the situation as possible to the attention of the public. I do not think it would cost any money or offend any broadcaster's sense of duty to find a way to do this
January 25, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	5953
in good taste, if it can possibly be done that way.
As a lawyer I am concerned about the concept of trying, in a statute of this kind, to direct the method in which judgment shall be used by a regulatory body. Frankly, I do not think it is possible. When we as legislators are trying to draft an act we sometimes try to do so with such preciseness that we will know in advance the way in which a court is going to interpret it so as to give full effect to what we mean, but one of our difficulties is that we are not clear in our own minds what we mean. We have only vague ideas and therefore we only convey our ideas vaguely.
However, one hon. member put his finger on a solution to the problem when he said that the people who are making these regulations and running our broadcasting systems have access to Hansard. They are able to read for themselves what has been said and to gain a consensus of opinion, if they can, from the remarks made in this chamber. This certainly is not a method open to the courts that can be used in trying to arrive at a strict interpretation of what parliament meant. But here, as I have suggested, we cannot give a strict interpretation to what we mean because the meaning is vague. The meaning is different for each one of us. It is different in the minister's mind and it will be different in the minds of those administering this legislation when it is passed.
By way of supplementing what their consciences dictate those in charge have a duty to find a method of using our broadcasting systems in the most satisfactory manner. This encompasses the duty to inform, to educate, to entertain, to stimulate knowledge, to activate the imagination without, if possible, offending, and to needle. If necessary, those who have the duty to regulate can get assistance by referring to the pages of Hansard.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am afraid I am going to be opposed to the amendment because I feel that the subclause as drafted does give sufficient direction to the regulatory body and to the people responsible. I agree with the minister that an attempt to redefine what is in it would only point up the necessity of redefining it further. This rather generally worded subclause is all-encompassing enough to give to the people responsible the maximum of direction that we can cogently lay down, and at the same time it gives the greatest freedom that their responsibility will allow them to exercise. I feel that the speeches made in this chamber
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting give us an opportunity, as our duty and conscience dictate, to register our protests against some of the excesses that we have seen in a great many programs. There is one aspect which I started to check. I looked at the remarks made by some hon. members to see whether there might be a sharp cleavage, as there is in the United States, between the doves and the hawks. It seemed to me we were consistently receiving criticism of the clause as it now is and also speeches by those in favour of amending it who I will call the hawks. The latter represent those who favour the United States action in Viet Nam and while listening to the news reports find criticism of the action of the United States most offensive. Then I find coming from the doves, those who criticize the action of the United States, criticism of the amendment on the ground that it is restrictive.
The line was perhaps not quite that clear-cut, but this does give one example of how those of us who feel inclined to criticize some United States programs very severely can be motivated. Here we can see very clearly that the criticism is motivated by a feeling of resentment on the part of some people that the C.B.C. should take a very critical look at the actions of the United States in Viet Nam. Perhaps there is a feeling that we should be supporting the United States and that C.B.C. criticism is one-sided and unfair. Perhaps there are others who feel that the C.B.C., because there is so much United States propaganda on the other side, should simply give us a balanced picture.
Whether or not we get a balanced picture depends on several things. There are people who feel that through broadcasting, television, radio and the United States magazines which flood this country we receive a predominantly pro-United States government point of view. Would we obtain a more balanced picture by trying to balance the proUnited States government view by means of the Canadian media presenting a very critical view of the same things? In other words, is it possible, feasible or reasonable in this country to say that in our own communications systems we must have a balance and present both sides adequately in order to comply with this bill or do we read this bill in cognizance of the fact that we will have to face the overwhelming and almost overpowering influence of the United States media and take a very one-sided view in order to try to balance to some extent the general views of the situation that are available to the Canadian public?
5954	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I am just giving a picture of the situation so that we will be aware of some of the difficulties involved in an attempt to be specific about the directions to the regulatory and managing authorities. I become more and more worried every time someone suggests an amendment which is more and more specific.
I hope the position taken by the minister that the clause as it now reads is more effective than it would be should the amendment be accepted will prevail and that we will defeat the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member consider that a clause which outlines guide lines for programming is essential in the bill?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am neither certain that it is really essential nor that it will be very effective. I feel that the way it is worded now it will provide a better chance to achieve our objectives than we would have by encumbering the wording with the proposed amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member consider it to be essential that the bill should instruct management of the news media on television and radio concerning the type of programs that should be presented to the public?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not sure that the meaning of programming is defined in this subclause at all. So far as I can see all it is is a reminder of a couple of guiding principles which the government would like to see kept in mind in respect of what the type of programming should be, its general coverage and the use of talent. I suggest they are no more than suggested guide lines; there is nothing directive that I can see. It does not have the preciseness of a prohibition in a criminal statute and does not have the mandatory value of the Income Tax Act which states that you shall file your return by a certain date. I believe it is admirably if not beautifully worded for the purpose of being a general reminder of what we would like to have kept in mind in the operation of our broadcasting systems.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I might make a useful interjection, particularly as a result of the series of questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
responded to by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings posed the question of whether or not it is so difficult in a forum of this kind, the committee of the whole, to arrive at felicitous words that perhaps we should drop the question. He asked about the position of the B.B.C. and I have done a little research in this regard. Perhaps I might give this information to the committee now. I think it will lead hon. members to the conclusion that this subclause is most important and should not be dropped. Indeed, it is the clause which is the heart of the licensing authority for the
B.B.G. The regulating body under the new act will have to be guided in its licensing policy by whether or not an application complies with the things set out here, being policies and instructions in respect of the kind of programming that public and private broadcasting should follow.
If I might go back, the only thing which appears in the legislation now in effect-I refer to the 1958 legislation which it is generally conceded we need to strengthen-as between regulatory policy and broadcasting policy, public and private, is section 10 which contains the objects and purposes of the current Board of Broadcast Governors. If I might read that section it reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
10. The Board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada, and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
There is nothing else in the current Broadcasting Act which lays down the obligation of the B.B.G. in so far as the two sectors of broadcasting, public and private, are concerned.
What happens in relation to the B.B.C.? I indicated that there was something in the charter in this regard. I have now gone over this and looked at the reports of the proceedings of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts of Thursday, February 2 and Friday, February 3, 1967. At that time Sir Hugh Greene, the director general of the B.B.C., and Sir Robert Fraser, director general of the independent television authority, appeared before the committee. The evidence of Sir Hugh Greene, in answer to questions by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo,
January 25, 1968
appears on pages 1828 and 1829 and is in part as follows:


Mr. Jamieson:: On the structure of the B.B.C. charter, what kind of a document is it exactly? I do not ask you to give us the full details, but is there, anywhere in it, a point of reference from parliament, or from the authority which granted the charter, saying what the B.B.C. should or should not do, its aims, its objectives and that kind of thing?


Sir Hugh Greene:: There is a section of the charter headed "Objects of the Corporation", but the interesting thing is that that section of the charter does not contain anything about programs. The only point at which the programming activities of the B.B.C. are mentioned is in the preamble to the charter where it says:
"Whereas, in view of the widespread interest which is thereby and by other evidences shown to be taken by Our Peoples in the broadcasting services, and of the great value of such services as means of disseminating information, education and entertainment. We believe it to be in the interests of Our Peoples in Our United Kingdom and elsewhere within the British Commonwealth of Nations that the corporation should continue to provide broadcasting services pursuant to such licences and agreements in that behalf as Our Postmaster General may from time to time grant to and make with the Corporation".
In the United Kingdom the postmaster general is the regulatory authority. He grants the licences and fulfils the same function as our B.B.G. does currently. Then at page 1829. Mr. Jamieson asked Sir Hugh whether or not there had been any articulation of the policy of programming of the B.B.C. Sir Hugh indicated that from time to time various senior officials of the B.B.C. had formulated policy, but otherwise the only official place where this existed was in an exchange of memoranda, which was a published document available in the library of the House of Commons, between the postmaster general and the chairman of the B.B.C., in which the chairman states in a letter to the postmaster general in very broad terms the objectives of the B.B.C. and accepts certain basic principles such as:
-our duty on impartiality, having no editorial opinion, and treating controversial subjects with due care and so on. That is not in one of our instruments. It is in the form of an exchange of correspondence between the chairman and the Postmaster General.
That seems to be the only reference in the committee, but there is another publication to which we have referred, the B.B.C. Handbook 1967, which sets out what I think most committee members know anyway, namely, the postmaster general's power. At page 142
5955
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting under the heading "The powers of the government" it states:
Under clause 14(4) of the licence, the Postmaster General: "may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from sending any matter or matters of any class specified in such notice."
In other words, the postmaster general has, on behalf of the government and the United Kingdom parliament, the right to instruct the B.B.C. specifically with regard to its programming. However, as one reads on one will note the following:
This clause gives the government of the day a formally absolute power of veto over B.B.C. programs, but in practice it has always been treated as a reserve power. The governors have absolute freedom in the handling of day to day matters-
So the postmaster general of the United Kingdom is in the position of giving licences and setting conditions, as the B.B.G. does here, but with that absolute power because it is a matter for the government, whereas the B.B.G. has only such powers as this parliament gives it.
It was conceded that the 1958 act was weak in that it did not set out the specific powers which the B.B.G. had and the basis upon which it was to issue licences. Accordingly this clause was drafted, and subclause (d) of the current legislation is the direction which parliament now gives to the new board or council, whatever name it has, as to what element of acceptance it will require of a licensee before granting a licence.
If you look at clause 15 on page seven of the bill you will see that it is the council's responsibility to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy enunciated in section 2 of the act. If you look at the other subclauses in clause 2 you will find that this is the whole programming policy because there is no other place where the whole system is referred to. So in fact this is the heart of the instruction of parliament to the B.B.G. Therefore I think it will be agreed that this is extremely important and that we cannot do without it.
That answer to that part obviously does not get us out of the difficulty involved in various members drafting things they think should be done. We all know that every time the estimates on broadcasting come before the house, the C.B.C. estimates, most of the discussion is about something that none of us can do anything about. I refer to the matter of programming and protests in a general way.

5956	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
What this amendment attempts to do is to draw, in quite a bit more restrictive way, a policy under which the B.B.G. would be required to insist that licensees deal only with matters which have a broad general acceptance. I think that much of the argument made by the hon. member for Royal and other members, even though there apparently is considerable conflict in respect of freedom and restrictions on broadcasting, reflects not only their personal views about avoiding censorship but also their sense of responsibility in laying down some sort of instruction to the B.B.G., because it has been demonstrated it needs to be instructed and that regulations are required. These laws are drafted by a group of 265 men and women, none of whom is an expert in this field even though a number in the chamber may be experts in one or another area of broadcasting. We are required to define narrowly what the broadcasting regulatory powers should be. I think this is almost an insuperable task. This is demonstrated by the fact that with absolute power in the United Kingdom the postmaster general there has never used those powers and they are only held in reserve.
I only make this argument, along with those I made yesterday before the committee, in the hope that the committee will use the words which are already there as the charter for the B.B.G. in respect of the issuing of licenses.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the minister a question. She has drawn our attention to the statute now governing the B.B.G. and broadcasting generally. In doing so she mentioned that programming should be varied and comprehensive, of a high standard and should use Canadian talent resources. Those three points are covered in this subclause on programming but there have also been included these words that the hon. member for Red Deer is attempting to amend. Let me read them. These words have been included:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
... and should provide reasonable opportunity lor the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy ...
I am not an opponent of public controversy. I hope no one is under any illusion in that regard. I do not shrink from controversy and I do not object to controversy being exposed in the newspapers and on television and radio. But why was it considered necessary to introduce that particular phraseology into the instructions to management? Who felt that it was essential?

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
Under direction broadcasting has been atempting to achieve a varied and comprehensive type of programming, a high standard, which, of course, cannot be defined to the satisfaction of everyone, and Canadian content. But this phraseology has been introduced. I think this is what stirred up the debate yesterday. I recall particularly listening to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and wondering why attention was drawn to matters of public controversey, because this is what we have had on radio and television for years. Radio and television programs have aroused public controversy. Some of this controversy has been artificially aroused in the minds of some of us, the less sophisticated element of the population, if the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona does not mind my using that expression and indicating the portion of the populace to which I belong.
I want to get at the reason for this wording. The only thing that bothers me about the subclause is that, first, I do not think it is necessary. I rather like the British idea of an exchange of correspondence between the governing body and the management. But if we are going to have this type of instruction with regard to programming I want to know why we are to have it. I want to know why the wording is What it is and why specific attention has been drawn to public controversy. The minister read a phrase from one of the British publications with regard to controversy. I did not note it and have now forgotten it, but it struck me as being better under the circumstances. I do not know whether it included the word "fair".


Mr. Nowlan:: "With due care".


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend says it was "with due care". I am not objecting to conflicting views on matters of public controversy. My objection is, first, that in some of the programs to which I have paid attention a balanced viewpoint has not been put forward on matters of public controversy and, second, that certain matters have been artificially raised to the realm of public controversy when they might much better have been left in abeyance. That is the situation as I see it, Mr. Chairman.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the hon. member I had recourse to the Oxford dictionary. It is the 1964 edition and I got it from the table. If the word "controversy" is what has caught the eye of members opposite-and indeed that seems to be the case-I would like to refer to its definition.
January 25, 1968	COMMONS
Synonyms of the word are "disputation", "to controvert", "to discuss", "to dispute", "to deny". I would have no objection at all and I am sure the government would not, if it rings better on my hon. friend's ear, to change the phrase "public controversy" to "public discussion", because that is what it means. If "controversy" immediately makes one think that it must be sensational and attract attention, I would say that is not the intention of the language. In the draftsman's language it means that if there is a matter with regard to which the public legitimately takes two different sides, that is what a discussion is, that is what a controversy is. I am sure there would be no objection to replacing the phrase "public controversy" with "public discussion".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member wishes to ask a question. I have no objection to his doing that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the minister for the explanation she gave in answer to my question of yesterday. There is another question I was going to ask today. I was going to ask the minister about the Australian authority and whether in Australia, which I gather regulates its public broadcasting system, there is any direction in regard to programming. If the minister has an answer I would appreciate it.
I want to make one point, Mr. Chairman. While I appreciate the minister's answer to my question, it reaffirmed my thinking that the fact that in clause 2 (d) we are attempting to write broad terms of reference with respect to programming will just open up the proverbial can of problems. This will cause confusion and controversy in every parliament hereafter. We have now spent a day and a half on clause 2 (d). I think this is a good example of how controversial such a clause, which is not going to do anything directly, is.
I hesitate to disagree all the time with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, especially with regard to broadcasting, let alone other matters, but the hon. member, with his legal background, thinks that the wording of subclause (d) is a beautiful expression or articulation of legislative intent. This leaves me somewhat aghast in view of his experience in attempting to interpret laws. I can see members of parliament standing up after 27053-376^
DEBATES	5957
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting every program of the C.B.C. or C.T.V. and saying, quite legitimately, that the program was not of a high standard and discussing the terms of reference under this bill.
The minister answered a question with respect to the B.B.C. She pointed out that in England there is no attempt to give specific terms of reference for programming; there are only memoranda between the corporation and the government. I believe we will rue the day if we attempt to say anything about programming in this bill. The minister referred to other terms of reference under which licences are granted. There are many subclauses in clause 2 which will determine whether a licence is to be granted.
I am absolutely opposed to any attempt to get into the question of programming. Our hon. friends to my left talk about free speech; yet the hon. member for Sudbury rose this afternoon and said that he believes in qualified free speech. As long as it is the public sector, it is wide open, but when it is the private sector and the captive station to which he referred he wants all sorts of controls applied.
What kind of hypocrisy is that? I suggest that we should deal with the matter of hypocrisy in this respect. I have heard in this parliament for two years that we should not become involved with programs; yet we are going to do that now. I appreciate part of the minister's answer but I do not think the elimination of subclause (d) of clause 2 will defeat the purpose of clause 2. There are in it other terms of reference which will guide those who issue licences. The fact that we have spent a day and a half on this subclause-and there are others in the bill that will raise more problems-indicates the confusion and controversy that are created when we even try to touch the field of programming. I say we should leave the subject of programming to the management of both the private and public networks, and the public network, the C.B.C., is covered by subclause (g).
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take up more time of the committee, but obviously I did not explain this. In the United Kingdom there is no B.B.G. However, there is the postmaster general. He has not given direction in this regard, as he is fully entitled to do under the legislation, because there exists a memorandum of agreement. So in fact the B.B.C. has been given direction in
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this exchange. It knows what its framework is because it has been given it by the postmaster general, although in a much more informal way than is provided for in their legislation.
I suggest to my hon. friend that if no provision is made, what little already exists in the current legislation would be removed. No power would be left to the B.B.G. If that were done, our position would be similar to that in the United States where the F.C.C., which is the regulatory board in there, has no control over programming. I ask my hon. friend to look at what is happening in United States programming and to consider the kind of programs we would have if the public and private stations were allowed to decide for themselves exactly what they were going to do.
This subclause is an attempt by parliament to tell the B.B.G. what must be laid down in the licences for public and private broadcasters. If it were deleted, greater control would have to be given to the B.B.G., control such as the postmaster general is given in England, which would give them the absolute power to say whatever they want to public and private broadcasters about their programs. If that were to be the suggestion, then I think this bill would have to be sent back to the committee because I know that by the time the newspaper reports of this debate reached the street we would have almost every private broadcaster and representatives of the public element, too, on our doorstep asking to appear before the committee and asking for some strictures to be placed upon the B.B.G.
What many have called a chaotic situation in connection with the F.C.C. might be the result here if we deleted the subclause.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the minister not think that subclause 2 (g) contains some guide to the C.B.C.? I suggested yesterday that the private networks and the private programs will take care of themselves because if they do not these private stations will sink into financial deep water. I am interested in parliamentary responsibility for the taxpayers' dollars spent on the C.B.C., and I have restricted my remarks to the C.B.C. I suggest to the hon. lady that the direct restrictions on the
C.B.C. with regard to the national broadcasting system contained in subclause 2 (g) would take care of any possible chaos. We all know of the problems that arise when programs are meddled with.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: parliament is prepared to give it, just as whatever amount of money we earn we can find ways to spend. From time to time parliament must cut back on its expenditures. This year, for instance, the expenditures are much less than have been requested. The C.B.C. is caught in a squeeze because it wants to expand.
Let us consider, for example, the introduction of colour television on the west coast. If they are not allowed sufficient money and there is nobody to police their programming, we will find more and more United States programs coming in and more and more programs dumped from abroad while at the same time less use will be made of Canadian talent because it is expensive to produce Canadian programs. We will find there will be no Canadian broadcasting left at all because all the economic interests working in private broadcasting would come into play in public broadcasting.
I do not suppose there is any other field in which we use a policeman in this manner, but this is what all the experts in Canada have suggested to us. We introduced a policeman under the 1958 legislation but we did not give him enough teeth and we did not back him sufficiently, so when a conflict arose between the policeman and those he was supposed to police the policeman usually wound up with a black eye and the alleged culprit went free. We hope that will not happen, and that is what the legislation is designed to prevent.
I apologize to the committee for taking up so much time but 1 really think this subclause is fundamental to the whole act.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just concluded her remarks by saying that we are now dealing with one of the most significant and fundamental aspects of the broadcasting legislation.
As far as I am concerned, I agree with her that even though this clause were to be referred to a committee for further consideration, it should not prevent all members, even no experts in radio and television matters, to express their views which, after all, reflect those of the constituents they represent in this house.
In the past, we have had numerous complaints to make about this crown corporation which will soon submit to us estimates that will be double the administrative costs of the United Nations for a single year. That is why I feel it is important that members have their
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting say with regard to management, programming and to the orientation it is sought to give the corporation through the increased powers being conferred on the C.B.C.
Mr. Chairman, we are far from seeing in this piece of legislation a definite cure for the ills of the C.B.C. The wording of subclause 2(d) is surely disquieting, especially if we fail to correct, prevent and anticipate any abuse such as that committed since the establishment of the corporation.
I am very sorry that certain left-wing members, mostly New Democrats, consider the criticisms levelled against the C.B.C. as merely aimed at destroying and restricting freedom of expression in Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If anyone has achieved that objective, by forming pressure groups, by organizing demonstrations of all kinds against the way the war is being fought in Viet Nam-contrary to freedom of expression and the opinion of the majority of Canadians-the members of the New Democratic party did, for they managed to arouse a group against the established order in Canada.
For my part, I do not intend to overlook such an important clause and I am determined to plead my arguments forthwith against as weak a phraseology as that which concerns "conflicting views".
Before I do so, Mr. Chairman, the house may be interested to hear certain anecdotes, amusing incidents which took place in the administrative circles of the C.B.C.
A few years ago, more specifically in 1964, the C.B.C. delegated to Cairo and Cyprus two crews of cameramen and producers, one to cover the situation in Cyprus, the other to report on Cairo. 1 heard, in certain milieux, that some of the persons were sent on these special assignments to Cairo and Cyprus as a reward. The crew sent to Cairo did not have much to do and so it went to the beaches to take at least a few shots and justify the expenses involved. Suddenly, they see a caravan wending its way towards the city. Imagine their astonishment when they realized that the caravan they were photographing was the crew the C.B.C. had sent to Cyprus: they were on their way to Cairo for a visit of the city.
In the light of such situations which cost the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, I wonder why we are not completely free to examine their expenses and require the C.B.C., whose bills we pay, to give us an answer.
5960	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Recently, Mr. Chairman, several C.B.C. employees left their listening-post in Hong Kong or Montreal to go to Viet Nam and report on the war there. I have been told by well-informed people that these employees refused the help graciously offered to them by the South Vietnamese and the American authorities, but paid up to $1,000 to the Viet Cong for transportation to stategic spots where they could visit military posts.
Thus we see the C.B.C. refuse help offered free in order to pay the Viet Cong for information which could easily have been obtained in a much more intelligent and less expensive way.
I have recounted these anecdotes in order to show that this clause concerning the "opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy" is extremely important, because there is a clique, a coterie within the C.B.C. and only the favourites or a certain group of people open to preconceived ideas are allowed to go abroad to do a certain type of reporting.
We are obviously all influenced by a vast propaganda network which is dominated by those who, like our N.D.P. friends, use freedom of expression as an excuse for subjecting us to a lot of propaganda which is completely inconsistent with the Canadian spirit and mentality. Mr. Chairman, this is happening not only throughout the whole country, but also in the province of Quebec.
A few years ago, on March 24, 1965, 76,000 Quebecers signed a petition which was published in the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil. That petition signed by 76,000 mothers read as follows:
We ask our representatives-
That is, we who sit in this House of Commons.
-to put an end to the domination exercised by a minority in the C.B.C. to spread perversity, pornography, tree love, blasphemy, drug, violence and crime.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that some members here may find that these remarks are exaggerated, but these are the feelings which mothers, conscious of their responsibilities to their children, felt necessary to express through the newspapers. If we were so little concerned about our responsibilities, we could surely turn a deaf ear, but we would certainly be judged by those who send us here to represent them, as people who failed in their duty, in their obligations.
{Mr. Valade.l
DEBATES	January 25, 1968
May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to say that there must be on the airwaves, if not a moral code, at least some guidelines conformable to Canadian morality. In fact, I hope that we have a public morality in Canada and I do not think that freedom of speech or freedom of expression is thwarted when standards of morality are established for the good of society. I am not speaking of those revolutionaries who possibly make up one quarter of one per cent of the population and who stage violent demonstrations in front of embassies to intimidate the peaceful population; I am speaking in the name of the people and saying there should be a moral code just as there is a labour code for workers.
When a labour code is set up, there is no question of censorship, of restricting the freedom of unions or employers or of other areas. It is simply a question of defining standards of conduct-aware of our responsibility as a Christian people-so that they should promote a healthy atmosphere, an atmosphere of understanding and peace.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the other night I heard certain members of the New Democratic party state their concept of morality. For them, morality is licence. If our crown corporation is allowed to show the most degrading films on television and if people protest according to their Christian concepts against such action, we can already feel the New Democrat wave of propaganda rise against what is claimed to be an attack on individual freedom.
We have unfortunately undergone far too long such propaganda and pressure, without saying a word, without protest. Surely, there must be in the minister's or the government's views some basis of morality, of Christian philisophy, that should guide, it seems to me, the legislation.
A while ago, the minister told us that in Great Britain, some guidelines or a code are given to the postmaster general. In fact, she said:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

"Controversy with due care"; I think they were the words of the minister.

I am amazed that we do not have the same terms here: controversy with due care.
Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed, at this point, to quote two eminent personalities outside the world of politics whose life can certainly serve as criteria, if we want to lay
January 25, 1968	COMMONS
down the foundation of Christian policies or guide lines for our parliamentarians and the government in the orientation of our policies.
This is what His Holiness Pope John XXIII had to say about broadcasting, television and films:
The producer of a film or a television program can no longer propose solely to amuse or fascinate the vast public he addresses.
He must consider himself an educator of society and must use his art to enrich, enlighten and inspire souls. It follows that those producers have the duty to perfect their artistic and technical competence through a deep Christian culture.
I would like to add to that a quotation from His Excellency Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger- now in Africa-who, on June 22, 1962, at the University of Montreal, said about the dangers of the picture:
-which is more a source of impulse than reflection-
He added:
The picture which man creates of himself must be true, otherwise it is not human ... the incomplete or tendentious picture is always immoral, whether it wants to hide evil or see only evil. Therefore, it is the value and the human expression of the creator which conditions his production. He must show a major personality, impeccable taste at the service of sound craftsmanship. It is his first duty and he must set forth the true human problems before calling upon answers from the gospel. If it is otherwise, films and television are only vulgar propaganda tools. Faith must be for a Christian a vision of the world which allows him to probe deeper into the drama of man, to express man more completely.
Such are, Mr. Chairman, the directives that could guide us to the best advantage in setting a course for the policy. I am not saying that we should follow them just because they were given by eminent figures of the Catholic Church and that they should give directives to everybody, but I suggest their philosophy and directives, as to public morality, are undeniable. I do not think there is anything in those words that could interfere with the freedom of human beings, the individual freedom. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I believe there are certain things, within as well as outside this parliament, which interfere much more with our freedom, what the New Democratic party calls the limitation to individual freedom. Whenever we do something in order to rectify in any way some of the C.B.C.'s actions, it is that freedom we are upholding.
Allow me to quote as example some films shown on the English network, which stirred up the anger of the C.B.C. listeners. I refer to the film "Two Soldiers". You will probably
DEBATES	5961
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting recall that film. It related the dramatic story of two soldiers returning from their military service, and who displayed before the listeners their lack of patriotism, who flaunted before everybody the fact they now let their beard grow, that they participated in antibomb demonstrations and that they were also homosexuals. That was the entertainment which our national system showed the Canadian people.
Another film, "Second Look", was shown on the C.B.C. in February 1964. It had as main participator, Mr. Ralph Ginsberg, of New York, editor of the dubious magazine Eros, a pornographic magazine if there ever was one, and extremely depraved. Mr. Ginsberg had been condemned to five years of imprisonment in the United States after being found guilty on 28 counts of indictment for attacks on public morality.
Another film shown on the English network of the C.B.C. is "The Observer". What was the meaning of that film our friends of the N.D.P. are ready to stand up for in this chamber, in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of action for individuals? What was the meaning of "The Observer?" We saw Dr. Albert Ellis, expounding to Canadians his views on sexology. Apparently, he is a top expert. Imagine how important this was to the education, the morality and the culture of Canadians whose merits often win high praise on the left side of this chamber. The views of Professor Ellis, who said to Canadians that not only premarital and extramarital sexual relations were necessary but essential, were aired for everybody to hear. That is what the C.B.C. was teaching us.
On the English network too, we were shown "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". How edifying are such subjects to Canadians!


Mr. Priitie:: Have you any examples taken on the French network?


Georges-J. Valade: We have more than you have in television. We know that that should not be. We are not defending the kind of trash that appears on C.B.C. programs. That is why we are here, to correct this stupid and illogical situation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what about the film "The Open Grave"? We remember that satire which shook the confidence of Canadians.
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
But we placed around the framework of the C.B.C. individuals who were unassailable. We have filled the management of that organization with persons who said: We are kings and masters of what is going to be shown in Canada, under the pretext of freedom of speech and expression, be it smut or trash. We are protected by the charter given to us by the federal government at a cost of $150 million per year in Canadian taxes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I have given a sufficient number of examples. I could perhaps add another film entitled "The Trespassers" in which was publicly shown the good effects experienced by young people who use marijuana, that baneful drug corrupting our youth throughout the country.
And what do our New Democratic friends reply? Turn the knob. Shut off your television or your radio.
But if we are to pay $150 million in taxes yearly to be told: Turn off your television set,
I prefer that we set down standards of conduct and morality. Not a single member conscious of his duty can tell me that we have neither the right nor the duty to set standards of philosophy, of public morality. I am not speaking of dictatorial standards nor censorship standards when we are thinking of setting standards of conduct for the good of society and the community.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) is not in the house, for he publicly contradicted the minister yesterday when he said that the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was exaggerating and that, carried away by his emotions he had gone beyond his thought when he had told the truth, possibly not too pleasantly, to certain people. When the member for Hochelaga said he had exaggerated, this was not true; however, if the member for Hochelaga told the truth, then the minister is wrong because some time ago the minister stated that the management of the C.B.C. was rotten. Yet, yesterday, the member for Hochelaga was saying that this was not so.
So I wonder who is right: the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) who is piloting the C.B.C. bill in the house.
I think they should tune their fiddles. It is unfortunate that he should be absent because it is not my habit to challenge the statements
[Mr. Valade.l

of members on the government side or members of other parties while they are absent from the house. But since I am given the opportunity, I should emphasize that the member for Hochelaga should be frankly and deeply embarrassed because the newspapers of 1963 reported that he had received a most important sum-nearly $35,000 from the C.B.C. when he collaborated regularly with this body and when his wife Mrs. Alexandre Leduc Pelletier was also employed by the crown corporation.
So, Mr. Chairman, I can realize that, in these conditions, a member would be ill-advised to say that the C.B.C. is well managed and that there are no favours given; in short, that all goes well.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has referred several times to the absence of the hon. member for Hochelaga. It may be that the hon. member for Hochelaga is attending the funeral of Mr. Rene Tremblay. That should be on the record. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that.


An hon. Member:: We all know that.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I was aware of that absence. I was supposed to speak yesterday but, unfortunately, due to the intervention of the hon. member of the New Democratic party and other hon. members who have the right to speak, I had neither the time nor the opportunity to take the floor. I apologize and I said so, for the information of the hon. member who has just interrupted me. I understand why he is not here. I am not in the habit of doing it, but if I do it now the hon. member for Hochelaga will have an opportunity to challenge my remarks and we can have an explanation later.
My object is not to attack the hon. member for Hochelaga, for he is entitled to his views. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) confides in him now, as do some ministers, and when the Prime Minister retires he can hope for an appointment to the cabinet. But that is out of the question for the time being in view of the statements he made against the Liberal party before assuming the responsibilities of a parliamentary secretary. I therefore invite him to express his views.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to point out certain things which have been said and I
January 25, 1968	COMMONS
understand the support the hon. member might give to the C.B.C. since he lived off it for a number of years.
But it is important to establish what we want to do, when we wish to set out, in a section of an act, the future standards to be followed by the C.B.C., for the future of the Canaidan people who will be obliged not to turn off their set, as the N.D.P. members say but rather to pay for the cost of operation of that corporation and who expect from us a first rate programmation where moral value and quality will not lack.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to move an amendment to the amendment already moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), I move:
After the words-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, we already have one amendment before us. I understand the committee can only consider one at a time.


Georges-J. Valade: It is a subamendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: All right. Let us hear it. I hope you have some copies in English, too.


Georges-J. Valade: Yes, I have some copies in English, contrary to the practice of the minister sometimes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege, I know that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie is seldom here and has to make the most of it when he does speak, but his suggestion that when I move amendments I do not provide copies in both languages is unfair. On his few appearances in this house the hon. member should try to be a gentleman. He should withdraw.


Georges-J. Valade: On a question of privilege, the Secretary of State has just said that I am not in the house very often. That is an accusation which is not fair. The hon. lady knows that according to the rules she should not say anything about members of this house which is derogatory. She only has to look around her to see how few members of the cabinet are present. The Prime Minister has not been here since the house reassembled. I know he is sick. The hon. member for Lotbiniere was away in France for three weeks before Christmas. What he was doing there, we do not know, but we hope he was doing some good work. I think the minister has gone out
DEBATES	5963
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of her way to take offence. Maybe she exaggerated when she said the C.B.C. was corrupt or no good-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I never said the C.B.C. was corrupt or no good. On the few occasions when the hon. member is here, or even in Ottawa, he should try to be accurate.


Georges-J. Valade: I believe the minister said the C.B.C. had a rotten administration, or something of that nature. I happen to think the government itself is rotten. The way they are trying to get this legislation through is proof of their arrogance. There is no reason for being insulting to members of parliament when they try in a constructive way to introduce improvements. The fact that I have a subamendment in my hand is no reason for the minister to be insulting. The Secretary of State should not complain because we are trying to correct her mistakes. The subamendment does not change the nature of the amendment. It simply adds more certainty. However, I am not insisting that the Secretary of State withdraw her remarks. I would prefer that she allow herself to be controlled by her better judgment and I will let her comments pass.

My amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is as follows. It consists in inserting, after the words:
-public controversythe following words:
-inasmuch as those views should not be heinous, injurious or of such a nature to create public disorder or discord between religious, ethnical or linguistic groups.
The paragraph goes on to state:
-and that the programming of each broadcaster-
Now, the purpose of the amendment to the amendment is not to alter in any way the main amendment of the hon. member for Red Deer; its sole object is to specify and to clarify what is meant by the conflicting views expressed on the waves of the C.B.C.


Robert William Prittie: Do you have an English copy?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I can only say that this is the kind of legislation that no chamber in the world would endorse. I do not know what the hon. member means by his subamendment. I do not know whom he expects to be the judge
January 25, 1968


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The Secretary of State has just accused me of making remarks while members of the front bench opposite were not here. I am not the one who raised that matter. I think she was the first one to raise it by saying I am never here, which is untrue. She has provoked this remark by her own stupidity in our language.
I do not mind being polite to the minister socially-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot even do that with you.


Georges-J. Valade: -but in this regard she must take full responsibility for her words.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do.


Georges-J. Valade: We have to accept our responsibilities here. When the minister makes such a remark about my amendment she must expect me to reply as bluntly and with as much politeness as she herself has shown.


On the point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think the Secretary of State knows she cannot say indirectly what she is not permitted to say directly. She has just implied that my amendment was the kind of amendment heard of in nazi Germany, or something of that nature. I think this is a gross implication and a defamation of my amendment. If the minister clearly says that that was not her implication then I will accept her words in a gentlemanly fashion as coming from a very lovely lady, as she is, and we will close the discussion. But I will certainly not allow this kind of implication to be made indirectly because this is certainly not permitted in this house. I require that she take full responsibility for her comments in the house. If I mentioned anyone being absent it was because she was the first one to make that implication in discussing the principle of my amendment. This kind of thing should not be tolerated, and I ask that the minister clarify her position in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think this is the time for the Chair to intervene and suggest to the committee that we get back to the subamendment before it.


Georges-J. Valade: Very respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I must point out that the minister has said indirectly what she is not permitted to say directly. She made the allusion that my amendment was a nazi or fascist kind of statement. This is not permitted by the rules and I will not tolerate it. I ask for a retraction by the minister.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has listened to the remarks made by both members and is of the opinion that there is not a point of privilege.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have reached a position in this debate where postures are hardening. I hope we can avoid too much rigid crystallization of opinion on both sides of the question. As I have advised the committee, I have every intention to move an amendment to this subclause before we conclude examination of it but I would not be prepared, nor do I think many members would be, to force proceedings to a vote on any amendment, subamendment or clause at the present time until members on the government side have a chance to return from their sad obligation this afternoon.
I take this opportunity to say a word or two about subclause (d) and my position with
January 25, 1968

respect to the amendment before the committee. I think I may be able to allay the fears and anxieties of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. He expressed the fear that if we continue to proceed at this rate it will be some considerable time before we get through all the clauses of the bill. If our progress on clause 2(d) could be taken as the criterion this would be a valid fear, but I would like to say to him that we should not take our progress on this subclause or on any other subclause in clause 2 as a criterion of the speed with which the bill will be dealt with because in fact this clause is the nub and heart of the whole legislation.
Although we may be making an arduous, difficult and in some ways tedious journey through this part of the legislation I would point out that this clause is a most crucial and vital one. It behooves all of us to address ourselves with all responsibility to the wording of these subclauses as now drafted, be it precise or imprecise, but I am sure that when we finish discussion of clause 2 we will move much more swiftly through the other clauses of the bill.
Earlier this afternoon the minister made a very cogent defence of subclause (d). Like the hon. lady I feel this subclause is vital to the bill and to the subject which has been before our broadcasting committee for many months. It is integral to the whole philosophy of broadcasting and to the whole library of broadcasting legislation that we are trying to develop. Although I sympathize with the intentions of those who would like to see subclause (a) eliminated, I agree with the minister that because it is integral to the philosophy and policy we are at last trying to enunciate the argument for its elimination is insupportable.
I have been interested in the remarks made by many members during the last 24 hours with respect to this subclause and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer. Some interesting points have been brought up, all valuable in their way, all legitimate, but I think there has been a tendency on the part of members on both sides of the question to express their positions in more extreme terms than are desirable at this point. It is most undesirable that we allow the dispute and discussion to break down into a contest between two rigid positions representing uncompromising philosophical areas of thought.
I think there is a middle road which we can follow. With all due respect to the hon.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting member for Red Deer, I believe that most of the difficulty that has arisen during the past 24 hours is due to the wording of his amendment. Although I have said that I intend to support his amendment I do not entirely agree with its wording. It is too general in some respects and too onerous in others. If a different amendment were placed before the committee we might be able to proceed through this subclause with a lot less contentiousness and dispute.
Those of us who are concerned about the precise wording of the subclause are concerned about responsibility, not about encroachment upon freedom or about restrictions upon freedom of speech. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona contended that the wording of the sub clause is entirely acceptable, if not impressive and beautiful. I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in his criticisms of that sweeping approach. I find that the wording of the subclause, to say the least, is imprecise, and this is what causes my discomfort with it. [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I would ask, for example, that the committee consider what is meant by the term "conflicting views" which appears in the middle of the subclause where it is stated that the programming should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy. The expression "conflicting views" says nothing, covers nothing, and guarantees nothing. If we cover communist views and fascist views and present them, they are conflicting, but that is hardly balanced treatment of a subject. One might have a view that abortion should be permitted at will in hospitals or should be permitted at will in back-room kitchens or parlours. Those are conflicting views, but they would hardly represent a balanced approach to the question of abortion and whether or not it should be permissible at all. One might present the position of the white extremists and the position of the black extremists. These would be conflicting views, but they would not constitute a balanced, objective, and responsible approach to the race question.
Many of us are concerned about the question of balancing, if possible, responsibility and objective. So I for one find myself completely dissatisfied with the term "conflicting views", particularly as it is used in the context of this subclause. This is just one objection I have to it. I believe that a guide line of
January 25. 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this type in respect of programming, particularly in the area of public affairs, is vital and indispensable to the whole area of broadcasting in this country and perhaps vital and indispensable to the whole fabric and future of the Canadian nation. I do not think the standing committee on broadcasting would have permitted such a subclause to be written into this proposed legislation had the members not been fully cognizant of and attuned to the whole political and social controversy which has been raging around broadcasting in this country for many years.
Guide lines are necessary. There is nothing wrong with guide lines. They are given to labour, industry and government agencies. However, the guide lines must contain something. Otherwise it is academic nonsense and in that case I would side with my friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings and say, "Throw it out". But if the subclause is to be there, as I believe it should and as I think the minister stated she believed it should, then let it say something. So long as a transmitter is up there is an opportunity provided for the expression of conflicting views, but if these views should cover only the opposite ends of the spectrum on any given question and not cover the middle on matters of public controversy, then to me this would seem to be so much semantic and academic nonsense. This subclause does not say what those who are concerned with broadcasting and who were concerned with this subclause when it passed in the standing committee in their hearts and consciences wanted to say.
If I might be so bold as to suggest what many of us in our hearts, souls and consciences wanted to say it is that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied, comprehensive and balanced in its treatment of matters of controversy and that the programs on each broadcasting station should be of high standard and so on. In other words, the offending clause in my view is the clause which says that the programming should provide only opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy. I suggest that that clause should be replaced by a clause stating that the programming should be balanced in its treatment of matters of public controversy.
If that were the wording of the subclause I would be entirely happy with it, knowing full well that one cannot legislate this type of operation in the extreme. I am not asking that it be legislated in the extreme. I am

asking, if these guide lines are to be enunciated and articulated in an area which has been one of social and philosophic dispute in this country for some years, that at least they be guide lines which mean something. Let us have intelligent and comprehensible guide lines and not some sort of expression in vague, general, umbrellalike terms behind which any kind of imbalanced and extreme activity can hide and disguise itself. It should not be general wording of the nature provided here in this subclause which provides an excuse and disguise for those who intend to practice imbalanced programming or perhaps intend to have extremism in their programming.
This afternoon the hon. member for Sudbury spoke about discrimination. He did not use that word and I do not mean to misquote him. However, he spoke about discrimination against his union and his party by the private television management in the city of Sudbury. I am as concerned about discrimination and lack of objectivity of that kind as I am about discrimination against the particular area of life or particular interest which may be close to my heart. I agree that there should be no discrimination by private management against collective employment or against collective operations, against unions, against labour, against socialism if you like, against the New Democratic party, against any other party or against any other enterprise in this country.
I am just as concerned about that kind of discrimination as I am about discrimination against people of French origin or who have black skin. I agree with the hon. member for Sudbury that if his suggestion is a true representation of the picture in his city he has a valid and legitimate complaint. I say to him that subclause (d) would be helpful in guaranteeing that this type of discrimination would no longer exist in Canada. It would protect his area and his interests as much as mine.
There have been a great many things said in this chamber in the last 24 hours which indicate that many speakers in this debate have taken completely out of context a distorted picture of the intent of those of us who either support the amendment now on the floor or, like myself, intend if that amendment should fail to move one with slightly different wording. A great many things have been said about freedom and encroachment and infringement of freedom. This is a red herring which was born in the days of
January 25, 1968

ancient Greece when democracy was originally proposed. It is a smoke screen and excuse behind which all kinds of champions of lies and irresponsibility have hidden down through the centuries.


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


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Yes.


Mr. Sianbury:: I think he was quoting accurately from the speech of his colleague from Prince. Is that the member whom he is accusing of those evils?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I am not accusing anybody of any evils. My hon. friend from York-Scar-borough is absolutely correct when he says my reference is to the remarks, among others, of my friend and colleague the hon. member for Prince. This is not the first time the hon. member for Prince and I have disagreed and I am sure it will not be the last. I am not accusing him of anything. All I am saying is that these remarks and many others made in this chamber constitute nothing more than an historic red herring that is 5,000 years old in terms of the philosophy of the western world.
As philosophers of a more modern vintage have pointed out, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The suggestion that to be vigilant where the public interest is concerned, to maintain an attitude of vigilance and watchfulness over operations such as modern day broadcasting, which have such an ambit of influence over the attitudes of people generally on political questions, and the suggestion that responsibility is necessary and desirable in this area, hardly represent in my view or in the view of many other Canadians, I am sure, an encroachment or impingement on personal freedom. All this does is reflect and expostulate on the attitudes in respect of freedom held by many in this twentieth century, in this society and the world in which we live which represents something less than an earthly paradise.
This is one area of the debate which indicates that the positions of many of those supporting the amendment and advocating the philosophy behind the amendment and their remarks in support of that philosophy have been taken out of context and distorted beyond all reason. I think the hon. member for Royal, for example, another colleague of mine-
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Mr. Fairweather:: Am I hiding behind a Greek philosopher of 5,000 years ago?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: No, but perhaps the hon. member is one who can bring some modern day philosophy to bear on a subject that has been distorted out of all proportion during this stage of the debate. The hon. member for Royal took great pains to deplore the objection that some members of this chamber have expressed, either here or outside the chamber, to the appearance of Adolph von Thad-den on C.B.C. television a few months ago. This is hardly relevant to the debate that is taking place here. Nobody during this debate on this particular clause of the broadcasting bill is objecting to the fact that visitors such as Mr. von Thadden should be invited to appear on television. Everyone in this chamber with any conscience would agree with the hon. member for Royal that there is essentially no harm done by hearing spokesmen of that particular point of view on the C.B.C. or any other television network in this country. There is no validity to dragging that kind of red herring across the trail of this debate.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I cannot be bothered looking up the reference but it is there.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: This is another area in which there has been an attempt to distort the intent of the people behind the amendment.
The same member, my friend and colleague, said he was not interested in hearing broadly held views on television because those views have the opportunity of being expressed	in	thousands	of	ways	throughnewspapers and other means of communication. No doubt they do, but so do narrowly held views have the opportunity to be expressed	in	thousands	of	ways	through
newspapers and radio communications. Why should not all views, broad and narrow, be given the availability of television outlets as well as other forms of communication media?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The amendment only speaks of the broad.


An hon. Member:: What broad?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The hon. member for Greenwood spoke about censorship and suggested that the most simple form of censorship lies in the simple act of turning the knob of the television set and shutting it off. I suggest this is not as easy an exercise as it appears on the surface. A great deal of psychological and sociological research must be done about the pulling power, the impact and compulsion
5968	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting quality of television, particularly in the homes of viewers who are perhaps denied access to wider forms of entertainment, education and a greater variety of activities, before we will know how simple it is for a person to get up and turn the "off" knob on his television set. In any event I do not think anyone in this chamber is advocating censorship.
Once again this argument follows a line which really goes beyond the area and intent contemplated by those supporting this amendment. No one was talking about censorship. All we were talking about, as I have emphasized before, is an exercise in responsibility by adopting a set of guide lines to enable people in authority in the broadcasting profession to know where they stand and what is demanded of them in measuring the performance of their performers and the people in their programming department in relation to the general philosophy on broadcasting laid down by legislation passed by this parliament setting out what is deemed to be responsible, constructive and a genuinely Canadian use of the airwaves.
With those comments I shall take my seat. Let me remind the committee once again that if we can get away from dispute and contentiousness with regard to the amendment before the committee we will be able to approach this subject and dispose of this subclause with much greater efficiency and a much greater community of agreement. The wording of the amendment before the committee is not only unacceptable to those opposed to its whole philosophy but it is also very difficult for some of us in favour of the philosophy to accept it because of its generality and the apparent strictures it would impose on the broadcasting authorities in the light of other clauses and the words they contain.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I did not take part in the debate on this clause yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I had no intention of speaking on the amendment introduced by the member for Red Deer, which I support wholeheartedly, until I was advised this afternoon that there was an agreement that there would be no vote on this amendment until the return of those who have been attending the last rites for Hon. Rene Tremblay who was a friend of mine. If I had been advised this morning, when I asked if the broadcasting bill would

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
be before the committee today, that there would not be a vote this afternoon, I would have attended the funeral. But I was told we would be debating the bill, which answer kept me in Ottawa because I understood we would be referring back to subclause (c). Not until this afternoon, after I had given up my reserved seat on the bus and plane did I learn that no vote was coming forward. Therefore I cannot be accused of continuing the discussion in order to postpone the vote at this time.
This debate gives me the opportunity of discussing the necessity of this amendment and other amendments to provide guide lines for the operation of our national television and radio networks. I do not believe we could have had more concise or blatant examples of the need for guide lines for conducting programming on both public and private networks than those examples we had last night and again this afternoon. I sat in this house and witnessed both episodes.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We have rules of debate which are summed up in the standing orders of the House of Commons. Standing order 35 reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada: nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Why do we have these rules of debate if it is not necessary to have guide lines? Although we have these rules of debate, little attention is paid to them. I was very provoked last night by the personal attack made by a member of this house against the hon. member for Roberval. I went across the floor of the house and pointed out to the hon. member for Roberval that standing order 35 provides that no member shall use offensive words against any member of either house. If I ever heard offensive words being used against a member of this house, last night was a prime example.
I do not like to see one person talking down to another, and I do not like to see one person setting himself up as a judge to evaluate the opinions of another member of the house who has been duly and properly elected by the constituency of Roberval and has every right to express his opinions whether or not any member of the house thinks he does not know what he is talking about. I
January 25, 1968

could not agree more with the hon. member for Roberval in the stand that he took last night.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I cannot see that the remarks he is now making are relevant to the clause under study.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, you were the Chairman last night at the time to which I am referring. I am simply pointing out the necessity for guide lines in the public sector of the radio and television world, when we need them in the houses of parliament. I am also pointing out that even when we do provide guide lines they are not always observed.
I had no sympathy this afternoon for the comments directed personally toward the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. While I seldom agree with the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, I defend his right to express any opinion in this house to which he has been duly elected on more than one occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You will agree with anyone as long as he is not a Liberal.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would like at this time to refer to a report that appears in this morning's Globe and Mail. Of course, there seem to be many lovers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who seem to have the conviction that nothing wrong can be done by the C.B.C. and that it is the proper measuring stick for all other sources of information. I had intended during the question period this afternoon to ask the Secretary of State whether we have to rely on reports of the Associated Press and Southam News Service for details of what is going on in North Korea, where a United States warship has been impounded by the North Korean people.
Has the C.B.C. yet sent camera crews, observers and commentators off to North Korea with the attitude, to hell with the expense, let us get the facts for the C.B.C.? Or do we have to rely on Southam News Service, the Associated Press and the Canadian Press for details upon which to form an opinion of this action? I refer to the C.B.C. news coverage because I wish to quote from the evidence given yesterday at a formal, government hearing in Cayuga, the county seat of Haldimand county, Ontario. This hearing was conducted under the direction of the provincial government of Ontario.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The report to which I refer appears on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail. It is a very detailed report. I wonder whether a report over the C.B.C. news service, either radio or television, will be given in such detail as it is printed in the fourth estate. Yesterday was the second or third day of a hearing which is investigating whether farmers and cattle in the Dunnville area are dying from fluoride poisoning, as alleged on a C.B.C. documentary some time ago. This documentary, of course, was fully paid for by the Canadian taxpayers.
May I leave that subject for a moment, Mr. Chairman, in order to refer to the recent remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South in which he referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins who stated that if you did not like a program you could always turn it oil. I later made the comment to my good friend the hon. member for Timmins that it would be satisfactory to me if you could turn the program off and your taxes stopped running. But when you turn a C.B.C. program off your taxes keep on running and you are paying for the blather that is coming over the air whether or not you want to hear it or look at it. While we may be able to turn our radio or television off, do not forget that our taxes keep on running and we are paying for the program just the same.
One of the witnesses who appeared before the commission appointed by the Ontario government to inquire into the ridiculous allegations made on the C.B.C. so-called documentary "Air of Death" was Dr. F. Graham Marson of Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Marson was on the stand in Cayuga yesterday. I presume he was sworn and was under oath, because it is a commission investigation under the direction of the department of health of the Ontario provincial government. Dr. Marson, who has been a consultant for Dunnville area doctors since 1958, said he was unable to find any evidence of fluoride poisoning during his examinations of two farmers concerned. He is a specialist in internal medicine and was called in by Dunnville doctors to examine two farmers suspected of suffering fluoride poisoning. He described the television program "Air of Death" as disgusting nonsense that left him questioning the credibility of any C.B.C. documentary.
When you have a man of the standing of Dr. Graham Marson of Hamilton in his community and profession referring to a so-called documentary on the C.B.C. as disgusting nonsense that left him questioning the credibility
5970	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of any C.B.C. documentary, I would say that we certainly need more guide lines for the direction of C.B.C. program directors than we have at the moment, because they are able to put programs like that on the air despite the so-called controls that are supposed to apply to them.
Dr. Marson pointed out under oath yesterday that his diagnosis of Jacob Vanderbeek, 68, in 1965, and Joseph Casina, 55, last July, was confirmed by intensive examinations last November at Toronto General hospital. The newspaper report goes on to say:
Dr. K. J. R. Wightman, physician in chief at Toronto General, told the inquiry that the two men were examined over a period of three or four weeks after the inquiry was ordered.
He said no evidence was found that the two men were suffering from fluoride poisoning.
You may wonder whether I have any personal knowledge of this documentary and the results that have flowed from the false statements that were made on the C.B.C. program.
I point out that about 48 hours after these allegations came pouring over the air on a C.B.C. program my daughter, who is a student at the University of Ottawa, came to me and stated that she had been approached by the private television network, C.T.V., to go on the air in a discussion on pollution. I said to her, "Young lady, I wonder how they came to pick on you, with the thousands of students at the University of Ottawa." She said, "I don't know, dad, but there are going to be three students from the University of Carle-ton and three from the University of Ottawa, and we are supposed to take part in a panel discussion with the federal minister of health, Mr. MacEachen." I said to her, "Well, it is interesting to me that they have asked you, Margaret. But what is it you would like?" She said, "I want to know if there is any body in the charges that have been made over the C.B.C. network, to start with, and I would like to know if they should be refuted or supported." I said to my daughter, in regard to her preparation for the C.T.V. program, "This is not a matter of federal concern, it is a provincial matter," and I got her the necessary portions of the law in question on the pollution of air and water.
I wish at this time to thank my friend the hon. member for Nickel Belt to whom I went for the supporting evidence to give my daughter. I went to him because I know the arguments that have been going on in the Nickel Belt-Sudbury area for the past 50 years over the question of pollution of the air and water there from the mining of nickel.

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
The hon. member for Nickel Belt gave me a tremendous file of facts and figures based upon investigations over the years by labour unions, government authorities and doctors in regard to this matter.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I turned the material over to the students of the University of Ottawa and they went to the studio with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A half hour program was presented in which the private network showed the public of Canada that this matter was not a federal responsibility and that if there was a responsibility for the illness of two men and the deaths of animals it was a provincial one. The fact that the province of Ontario has appointed a commission to investigate the matter shows that they accept the responsibility. However, why was there an unnecessary hubbub raised that the federal government was at fault in the matter? The reason for it was that a federal crown agency, the C.B.C., had put a program on the air which was fictitious and false from start to finish.
I will continue with the remarks made yesterday by Dr. Marson. Dr. Marson described as "complete imagination and fabrication" the statements made by Mr. Casina on the C.B.C. television program that he, Dr. Marson, had said Mr. Casina was "the third known case in North America". Dr. Marson said in his evidence yesterday "having never heard of a fluorisis case in Canada or the United States, I know jolly well I did not say that." Then Dr. Marson told the public inquiry that he was disgusted at the fact that the C.B.C. did not get in touch with him before the program was broadcast to check the statements attributed to him by farmers who took part in the show. He then made the following amazing statement: "I think it is disgusting that Stanley Burke does not ring me up before the program but does the following Wednesday."
In introducing his amendment to subclause (d) the hon. member for Red Deer referred to the fact that it was a carryover from subclause 2 (c). I hope I may be allowed to read subclause 2 (c). It reads as follows:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations-
The hon. member for Red Deer wants to put a little more teeth into subclause 2 (d), following the reference that is made to generally applicable statutes and regulations in
January 25, 1968

subclause 2 (c). Surely adherence to the truth might be one of the regulations that could be observed by the C.B.C. in its programming.
When Dr. Marson pointed out that the statements attributed to him by a farmer were false and that the only time he was consulted with regard to the validity of these remarks was after the program rather than before it, he was giving evidence that the C.B.C. themselves admit that something was mishandled when they put that program on the air.
To show how much Dr. George L. Waldbott of Detroit knew about the subject, Drs. Wightman and Marson were cross-examined by the commission counsel, Mr. Rodger Gordon. Mr. Gordon told the investigation at Cayuga that Dr. Waldbott had been invited to testify. Mr. Gordon read a letter he received from Dr. Waldbott saying he would be glad to testify but that at present his data is incomplete. It was on January 24 that Mr. Gordon, the commission counsel, read the letter from Dr. Waldbott.
Although Dr. Waldbott stated his data was incomplete, it did not stop him from making allegations and charges that the province of Ontario is spending money to prove unfounded and it did not stop the C.B.C. putting the program on the air some time ago. Dr. Waldbott then said he would like to see the reports on the examinations at the Toronto General hospital. I quote from Dr. Waldbott's letter the following sentence:
This would make it possible for me to render a valid assessment of their illness.
I wonder what kind of assessment he made of their illness before, if he now admits that he has not seen the results of the investigation made by the Toronto General hospital under the direction of the department of health of the province of Ontario and at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario because of false accusations put on the air by the C.B.C. He said that if he was allowed to see the results of the investigation made at the Toronto General hospital he would be able to give a valid assessment of their condition. Certainly this is a backhanded way of admitting that the first assessment made by Dr. Waldbott was invalid and should not have been on the air.
To show the expense to which the taxpayers of Ontario are being put by these false accusations made on the air on a C.B.C. program under the few guide lines they have now, I point out that Mr. Gordon, the commission counsel, told one of the farmers who
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting was complaining he was affected by fluoride fumes from polluted air that he and his wife could make arrangements to enter the Toronto General hospital if they felt they were suffering from fluoride poisoning and their expenses would be paid by the province of Ontario.
When the province of Ontario pays expenses it means that the taxpayers of Ontario are paying them, and this is a heavy expense which is being forced on the people of Ontario through false accusations which went out over the airwaves on a C.B.C. so-called documentary. No wonder Dr. Marson said that the falsity of one documentary casts doubts on all other C.B.C. documentaries.
I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Red Deer who is trying to put more teeth into this clause which endeavours to control programming in the public and private sectors of both the radio and television world, and I call upon all other members of the house to do the same, particularly after hearing this concrete example of irresponsible documentation by the C.B.C. as testified to by Dr. F. Graham Marson, an outstanding specialist in internal medicine, and Dr. K. J. R. Wightman, physician in chief at the Toronto General hospital, as recently as yesterday.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I have very brief remarks to make on the subamendment which is before us. If I have to make a choice between the idea presented by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that we scrap subclause (d) altogether, or add extra words to it as this subamendment does, I would opt for getting rid of it. We are simply loading this clause with more and more words which I think are meaningless. It seems to me that the intent of the subamendment is adequately dealt with in parts of the Criminal Code. It refers to public disorder, but we already have a law on sedition. I do not see why we should have to include these matters in the Broadcasting Act when they are already dealt with in other sections of the law It would be simply adding words to this bill which already has enough.


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


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, we have an agreement that if we come to the point of a division we will stand the clause until eight o'clock.
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The Assislanl Deputy Chairman: Shall the subclause with the amendment stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Should we not go back to subclause (c>?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Subclause (c) was stood because there was an amendment to it and presumably it would be necessary to vote on it. Therefore both these subclauses would have to stand.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause (e) carry?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, subclause (e) of clause 2 is a source of great puzzlement to me, by reason of its evasive wording, which reads thus:
All Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available;
Mr. Chairman, I think this is the worst excuse ever found not to proceed immediately with the building of relay stations to complete the French network of the C.B.C. It is quite easy and inexpensive to set up, in the large urban centers of the country, relay stations which would allow the French language to be heard and listened to throughout Canada, without prejudice to anyone and without disturbing anyone's habits.
A few million dollars would be enough to carry out this project which, besides, is consistent with the basic aims of state-owned radio. I feel that, in this way, the federal government would make a major contribution to the solution of the problem of national unity, would prevent too often heard recriminations, perhaps, and would also enable those who believe in Canada to assert that federal organizations contribute perhaps more than the province of Quebec to the development of French culture.
I become very sceptical when I am told:
-as public funds become available;
It would be very easy to have an investigation conducted by auditors, accountants or administrators in order to prove that the C.B.C. never has much scruples about spending public funds. That is an open secret, for we all know that a considerable amount of money is being spent and that this could be

prevented through normal and not even overly strict control. I could talk on this subject at great length.
Mr. Chairman, I will give several examples to support the assertions I have made this afternoon. Let us take the case of television in Quebec. There are two television stations in Quebec city which are controlled, owned and operated by essentially Canadian interests; these are channels 4 and 5. The two private stations in Quebec, which broadcast local programs for 40 hours a week, are operated by a staff of 130. In other words, 130 people manage to operate two private television stations in Quebec city, and their local weekly broadcasting output is 40 hours.
On the other hand, channel 11 of the C.B.C. which provides a local production of seven hours a week, compared to 40 hours for private stations, employs 200 people compared to 130 working for two stations owned and operated by private enterprise.
That is merely a small example of the expenses which I could qualify as orgiac, excessive and unjustified, which the C.B.C. makes out of the public moneys without any scruples, without any control, which should normally be exercised by responsible and competent directors, concerned with public integrity.
Mr. Chairman, we could multiply the examples and prove easily that the situation which exists in Quebec city also exists throughout the country. It is clear and obvious that private enterprise operates much more efficiently with fewer people, a lower budget and a higher viewers' rating.
We are called upon to vote estimates for the C.B.C. which has yet to show that it is desirous to avoid unnecessary expenditures. Under the circumstances, I have the right to say that the funds are available if we are willing to exercise a tighter control over C.B.C. expenditures. The four or five million dollars we would need to spread the French culture and the French language throughout Canada, without hurting anyone, without restricting anyone's freedoms, are available.
We would have the money available and I wonder if it would not be possible to proceed with this inquiry to allow such easy savings to enable us to build in the large centres of the country relay stations of the French network of the C.B.C., so that French-speaking communities could follow the events and obtain information in their own language.
January 25, 1968

Mr. Chairman, I note that it is six o'clock and I will have the opportunity to return tonight with more figures.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may 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 Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns), Health and Welfare- protest respecting lack of welfare statistics; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), British Columbia-development of secondary manufacturing capability; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Transport-alleged irregularity in rail line abandonment.
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, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the order paper today lists as order No. 1 a bill dealing with Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation. I have consulted various members in whose names the bills on this list stand and on behalf of the hon. member for Provencher I would ask the house for unanimous consent to change the order of the bills as listed. The order would be that items Nos. 7 and 8 on today's order paper be taken as items Nos. 1 and 2, and irrespective of the business that is dealt with or finished today item No. 2, which has to do with Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, shall drop to the bottom of the order paper at the end of today's business.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
To explain my request may I say with respect to item 1 that I have not been able to get in touch with the hon. member for Northwest Territories, but his colleagues in the house have informed me that he intended to
Private Bills
ask that the bill with which he is concerned stand. I have talked to all other hon. members who are concerned with private bills on today's order paper except the hon. member who is sponsoring item No. 5, second reading of Bill No. S-25, respecting London and Midland General Insurance Company. All other members to whom I have spoken, and since many of them are in the house they will verify what I say, agree to the procedure that I propose. Should items 7 and 8 not be dealt with they would not drop to the bottom of the list but other items on the order paper would advance their position. Item No. 1, naturally, would hold its place on the order paper at the conclusion of today's business. Item No. 2, at the end of today's business, would drop to the bottom of the list. Is that agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Basford:: Before I agree, do I have the hon. member's assurance that if we follow the hon. member's suggested procedure item No. 6 which stands in my name will, at the end of today's business, be listed on the order paper as No. 5?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There is no difficulty in giving that assurance in this respect. The request I have made is for the purposes of today's debate only. My request is that items Nos. 7 and 8 be treated as Nos. 1 and 2. If they are not disposed of they will resume their normal place on the order paper. Part of the order of the house would be that the other items move up one place.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In that case I am happy to give my consent on the understanding that item No. 6 on today's order paper will, at the end of today's business, become item No. 5.


Mr. Howard:: We are disposed to agree to the hon. member's proposition provided that at the conclusion of the consideration of items Nos. 7 and 8, item No. 2 having dropped to the bottom of the list, we adjourn for supper, even though that consideration may conclude before seven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has suggested that item No. 2 on today's order paper shall drop to the bottom of the list and that item Nos. 7 and 8 shall be considered as Nos. 1 and 2 for today. After items Nos. 7 and 8 are completed the sitting is to be suspended for the dinner hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 25, 1968
Private Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If Nos. 7 and 8 are
not finished they will retain their regular places on the order paper and item No. 2 will drop to the bottom of the list. Item No. 1 will retain its place on the order paper. Since items Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are orders of the house the house must unanimously agree to stand them. Does the house give unanimous consent to the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona?


Richard J. Stanbury: On the understanding that each one of the bills which Your Honour mentioned will move up one place on the order paper at the end of today's sitting. If that understanding is correct I give my consent as sponsor of the bill which stands as No. 3 on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 14, 1967, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Limited-Mr. Jorgenson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Thursday, December 14, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-Incorporation.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its courtesy in allowing these bills to be considered today. The reason for the present arrangement is that we are proposing certain amendments to the bill to meet the objections that were raised previously by the hon. member for Timiskaming and other members of the house.
I should like to move that:
Clause 6 subsection (a) be amended by striking out the word "refining" in line 30, and deleting all after the words "said pipe lines" in line 38 to the end of the clause in line 8, page 3 and adding immediately after the words "said pipe lines", "and own, lease and operate such communication equipment as is necessary for the purpose of its undertaking."
Paragraph (b) of clause 6 would also be amended by striking out all that portion of the paragraph after the words "property so acquired" in line 14, page 3.
The amended clause will then read:
(a) within or outside Canada construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold, develop, operate, maintain, control, lease, mortgage, hypothecate,

create liens or other security upon, sell, convey or otherwise dispose of and turn to account any and all interprovincial, extra-provincial and/or international pipe lines and all appurtenances relative thereto for the gathering, processing, treating, transmitting, transporting, storing and delivering of gases, liquids and solids or any of them including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any natural and artificial gas and oil and hydrocarbons and related substances or any of them and any products or by-products thereof and all works relative thereto for use in connection with the said pipe lines: and own, lease and operate such communication equipment as is necessary for the purposes of its undertaking.
(b) purchase, hold, lease, sell, improve, exchange or otherwise deal in any property, real or persona], movable or immovable, or any interest and rights therein, legal or equitable or otherwise howsoever, and deal with any portion of the lands and property so acquired.
I wish to move those amendments and I hope that the committee approves of them.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Would the hon. member permit me to delay putting the amendment until the committee comes to the consideration of clause 6?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
On clause 6-Power to construct and operate pipe lines.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 19, 1967, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-17, to incorporate Vawn Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Jorgenson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Tuesday, December 19, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-Incorporation.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I am proposing a similar amendment to clause 6 of this bill as was proposed to the previous bill. The only difference in the wording would be this.
January 25, 1968

Since Bill S-16 has one more line on page two than does Bill S-17, where in the fourth line of the motion to amend line 8 is referred to it should read "line seven", and in subclause (b) where line 14 is referred to line 13 should be read. Otherwise the amendment is exactly the same as the one proposed to clause 6 of the previous bill. The text of the amendment is as follows:
That clause 6 subsection (a) be amended by striking out the word "refining" in line 30, and deleting all after the words "said pipe lines" in line 38 to the end of the clause in line 7, page 3, and adding immediately after the words "said pipe lines", "and own, lease and operate such communication equipment as is necessary for the purpose of its undertaking."
That subclause (b) be amended by striking out all that portion of the subsection after the words "property so acquired" in line 13, page 3.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Power to construct and operate pipe lines.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron {High Park) for the second reading of Bill S-15, An Act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that this item be dropped to the bottom of the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that in accordance with the understanding reached a few minutes ago the house shall rise until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before we rise the house would agree to go into committee of the whole and resume the work interrupted at six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting 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: Pursuant to the order of the house made earlier this day, I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
At 6.20 p.m. the sitting of the committee was suspended.
[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-163. When the committee rose at six o'clock subclause (e) of clause 2 was being considered.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I made a few remarks and I shall close quickly to bring to the attention of the house that there are exorbitant expenditures in the C.B.C. No one will question the basis of such a statement. I have cited clearly the case of two private television stations in the city of Quebec operated by private enterprise. These two stations have a much higher rating than that of the C.B.C. with a personnel of only 130 employees. On the other hand, the C.B.C. has only one television station in Quebec and 200 employees.
That is the situation in the city of Quebec. Whereas the two private stations supply 40 hours a week of programming, the C.B.C. supplies seven hours a week: 200 employees for seven hours of production against 130 for 40 hours of production. If that is not abuse, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what could more eloquently describe the excessive expenditures of the C.B.C. It is perfectly clear that this situation is general all over. We should demand an investigation in depth of the expenditures of the C.B.C.
5976	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
That the C.B.C. should pay a correspondent such as Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin, a correspondent such as Mr. Pierre Sauve, I am in full accord, because they are two competent and serious newspapermen who deserve adequate fees.
But if, on the other hand, the C.B.C. is involved in such patronage as the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has mentioned, it is not surprising that the same faces are always seen on certain programs. For instance, what fees are paid to the participants in Quiz programs?
Besides, those people would be glad to appear on television for the mere sake of being seen and would perhaps refuse any fee, but in addition to gratifying their personal vanity, they are paid fantastic fees to take part in certain programs.
Who can tell us, for instance, how much is paid Gilles Pellerin's guest to appear on the program where one must not say yes or no? This requires exceptional talent. The thing is to be present and never say yes or no. All kinds of questions are asked. How much are paid the participants in such programs? Does it really requil'e any exceptional talent to perform the feat of not saying yes or no during 60 or 100 seconds? The participants are probably paid $100 or $200, while some humble labourers or farmers work 16 hours a day to earn $10 or $12. Then, we have the right, as representatives of the people, to insist upon a certain control. I do not think it is exaggerating to do so.
Why do I ask for such a control? It is because I am convinced that if an accountant or an auditor, who has the necessary experience, would make a point of investigating thoroughly the expenses of the C.B.C., we would surely be able to save the five millions of dollars necessary to set up relay stations allowing the French language to be heard throughout Canada. And that is vital for Canadian solidarity.
All that is necessary is to build stations retransmitting programs of the French network of the C.B.C. in large English-speaking centres in the country, to spread from coast to coast the French fact so as to meet the views expressed in the Laurendeau-Dun-ton report, and sanction the official recognition of the two languages in the country. I do not think it is exaggerating to submit such a request to the minister and I feel that with a little firmness, a little determination we would easily save the few million dollars needed in

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
order to spread the French fact throughout Canada.
Now that I have brought up that matter four or five times, I hope that this request will be taken into consideration and an investigation made into the books of the C.B.C. That is becoming urgent. I know how they operate. Anyone who ever set foot in the studios knows what is happening. There are some unforgiveable abuses.
I hope that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will support my request, because he talked so much in the past about saving money for the little people. I ask him tonight to co-operate with me and to request an inquiry into the expenditures of the C.B.C.; with the money saved then, we will truly have that network where the French language will be heard throughout the country and its official status, requested by the Laurendeau-Dunton commission will thus be recognized.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before it is passed, I should like to tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that I am prepared to support his request for a detailed inquiry on the expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words before this clause is carried and I think this is an appropriate time to speak on this very important piece of legislation. I was not a member of the standing committee which has been dealing with this bill, but several parliaments ago I had the experience of serving on various house committees which dealt with broadcasting, broadcasting policy and the method by which that policy should be evolved in the interests of the Canadian people. The question of programming is a very-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have been four days talking about this and repeatedly the committee has decided, in accordance with the Chair's ruling, that we would stick strictly to the subject being debated. The subject being debated is subclause (e), which has nothing at all to do with programming.


John Angus MacLean: I was under the impression that subclause (d) had not yet carried.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was stood.
January 25, 1968	COMMONS


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Subclause (d) was not carried. It was stood for further study and we are going to revert to if after we have dealt with subclause (e).


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, subclause (e) reads as follows:
-all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available;
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I wish to speak briefly on two aspects of this provision. First of all, I do not believe it is quite as easy and simple a task to extend the service across the country as the hon. member for Lotbiniere suggested in his speech a few moments ago. Some progress has been made so far as extending service, for instance radio service, in Canada is concerned. Just last month the C.B.C. did open a radio station in Vancouver. However, there are many parts of Canada which have not received service in the first language. In submissions to the committee, both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, representing the private side, agreed that where a second television station was to be opened in any city if the first station was a C.B.C. station the second station should be a private station and if the first station was a private station the second station should be a C.B.C. station. This was mentioned in the government white paper and I should like to quote briefly from the government white paper as it is reproduced in the report of the committee at page 9:
Although prime coverage must have first priority, alternative television service is an amenity now regarded almost as a necessity of life, which is already available to some 75-80% of Canadian television households. The Government has advised the Board of Broadcast Governors that, pending the enactment of new legislation, it is now prepared to consider issuing second-station television licences on the recommendation of the Board, subject to the reservation for the use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of channels in Victoria, B.C.; Saskatoon, Sask.; Sudbury, Ont.; and the Saint John-Fredericton area in New Brunswick. The provision of television service by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in these reserved locations will be inaugurated by means of repeater stations at first, as funds permit. The effect of this decision will be to permit the Board to consider applications by private affiliates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who may wish to disaffiliate and join the CTV network.
This recommendation has been made and repeated a number of times. So, if there are these four areas in particular I have mentioned, Victoria, B.C., Saskatoon, Sudbury and the Saint John-Fredericton area of New
DEBATES	5977
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Brunswick, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the present time is prevented from going into these places and erecting stations because of the cut-back of its capital funds which is now in effect.
During the committee hearings and the debates in the house some members have suggested that the second service might be made available by private stations who are affiliated with the C.B.C. I would be opposed to this line of action. I think that all the major cities and areas of Canada should have at least one C.B.C. owned station. If a private station should be allowed to go in there it would remain there and that would prevent the C.B.C. providing service. It is true that the affiliates carry a great deal of the C.B.C. network programming, but there is still a great deal that they do not carry.
I believe the people in areas which now have a private station should also have the public service available to them. If the government is not prepared to accord the capital funds to enable the C.B.C. to go ahead in these four particular areas the C.B.C. might consider building repeater stations, which can be done at much less cost, until they are able to obtain the funds for a complete station to serve the area. As a result of the questioning of the minister in the latter day of the committee hearings, I felt that there had been some backing down from the original statement in the white paper to the effect that these areas were to be reversed for the C.B.C. It seemed to me that she was going to consider the suggestion that they might be given to private operators. I hope this would not be done because the private side of television certainly will grow in Canada but I believe all major population centres should have a C.B.C. station as well.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this subclause 2(e) I have one or two remarks which I should like to make regarding the subject matter. I should like to emphasize that when the hon. member for Lapointe was endeavouring to have an amendment made to subclause (b), on Thursday, December 21, the hon. Secretary of State, who is piloting this bill at the present time, made the statement in the House of Commons directly to the hon. member for Lapointe that this is a declaratory clause and "we have tried to use appropriate language throughout". Well, the statement that this entire policy clause, clause 2, is a declaratory clause is borne out by the fact that we have
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting these expressions about "should", "should", "should", "should" all the way through. The use of the word "declaratory" is, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere has already pointed out, an indication that this is a promise without immediate substance. He points out that we may have to wait a considerable length of time before any action is taken under such a phrase as "all Canadians are entitled to be given service in English and French as public funds become available".
Of course, a declaratory clause may not bind the cabinet to any definite action. It does not necessarily bind the radio and television world to certain action so long as it is considered to be declaratory. But I can assure you that it would not be very long, if such a bill were passed, until we would be hearing the term used that parliament had given a mandate that all Canadians are entitled to a broadcasting service in English and in French as public funds become available. We have heard the term, "the C.B.C. mandate," for the past 20 years. There never was a mandate given to the C.B.C., but in their annual reports they always refer to a mandate. The proof of the pudding lies in the fact that when this bill was introduced in October the Secretary of State pointed out that this was the first mandate "we have drawn up for the C.B.C.". If a bill introduced in October 1967 was the first mandate drawn up for the C.B.C, what was the idea of referring annually to the mandate of the C.B.C from about 1940 to 1967. There was and is no mandate, yet the term is used "mandate for the C.B.C.".
One can imagine what will happen if clause 2 (e) passes since it declares that all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available. Despite the fact that we have the statement of the Secretary of State of December 21 that this is a declaratory clause "and we have tried to use appropriate language throughout", as I said before if we pass it, we will be saddled for the rest of time with the accusation that it is a mandate about which parliament is doing nothing. The interesting phrase "as public funds become available", as the hon. member for Lotbiniere has indicated, can only tease those who are very anxious to have the use of French spread throughout Canada from coast to coast which would cost the taxpayers of Canada millions and millions of dollars for C.B.C. hardware. I do not intend to make any remarks that would tend to bring to a head the situation which exists in this dominion with regard to the two languages, one of which is official throughout

Canada while the second may be used in the province of Quebec and in the houses of parliament.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I should like to draw the attention of our French-speaking compatriots-I dislike very much the expression "French Canadian" and much prefer the expression "French speaking Canadian"-to the fact that Canada lies within the province of a division made by Pope Alexander VI at Rome in 1493 in which he gave this part of the world to Spain. We are all aware that Columbus discovered America in 1492, but very few people seem to know that in 1493 His Holiness Pope Alexander VI of the Roman Catholic church divided the unknown world of the west between Spain and Portugal.
For Canadians the interesting point is that Canada, at the north end of America, was given to Spain by a papal bull issued on May 3, 1493. There was another papal bull issued on May 4, 1493. The reason behind the two bulls was that Columbus returned to Europe and announced his discovery of the Indies to the king of Spain. The King of Portugal maintained that he only discovered islands that had been previously discovered by Portugal. There were many papal bulls which conferred upon Portugal sovereignty over the islands she had discovered and which we know today as the Cape Verde islands and that part of Africa lying east and south of the Cape Verde island.
When Columbus returned to Europe and showed that there was great promise of riches in the Indies the Portuguese were envious. The King and Queen of Spain wished to have confirmation of their claim to title and they advised Pope Alexander VI in the spring of 1493 that Columbus, sailing under the authority of Spain, had discovered the western islands en route to India. In May of 1493 Pope Alexander VI issued the two bulls granting sovereignty over one half of the unknown Western world to Spain and one half to Portugal.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I am sure every member is impressed by the hon. member's knowledge of geography and history, but actually this is not relevant to the clause now being considered. All hon. members agreed that during the consideration of clause 2 reference could be made to each subclause but that remarks should be confined to the subclause under consideration. I would ask the hon. member to return to a consideration of subclause (e) of clause 2.
January 25, 1968


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am dealing with subclause Ce) of clause 2. I am leading up to a discussion of how French came into this Spanish territory, and I will proceed along that line.
The unknown world had been divided by the pope through these two bulls which have never been abrogated, giving this territory to the Spanish and Portuguese. The northern end of America was given to the king of Spain, and to this day the official language in Brazil is Portuguese. That part was given to Portugal.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The Chair requests the hon. member's co-operation in this regard. May I again ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to subclause (e).


Mr. Fulton:: The C.B.C. had not been established then.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, subclause (e) states:
- all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French-
I am endeavouring to make the point that evidently all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and Spanish because this area was given to the King of Spain by a papal bull. A great part of the Canadian population yields allegiance to His Holiness the Pope and I respect them for that, as I respect them for the way in which they observe the tenets of the church. I believe that bulls such as that issued in 1493, never abrogated, should be observed by the faithful of that communion which granted sovereignty to Spain and Portugal. When I say that these bulls have never been abrogated I wonder how we get French coming into this part of North America. Was it by conquest? The English conquered the French. If you are going to tell me that the French conquered the Spanish, I should like to ask when and where. These bulls have never been abrogated and are still in effect.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The hon. member is not making the task of the Chair any easier by not adhering to the agreement reached by all members of the house that members would confine their remarks to the subclause under study. May I again ask the hon. member to adhere to the subclause we are studying at this time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have no further declarations to make on this declaratory clause.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall we
now refer to subclause (d)?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, normally we would go back to (c) which was also stood. However, the proposer of the amendment, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, asked me to withhold it until tomorrow. With the committee's permission I am prepared to stand subclause (c) until tomorrow.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie?


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned on participating in this debate which has now carried on for long enough, but I have received so many complaints from my constituents I feel it is my responsibility to say a few words at this time.
I should like to congratulate the minister in charge of C.B.C. for having the courage to get up and tell the people of Canada that there was rotten management in the C.B.C. I agree there is something rotten and it is about time that parliament cleaned it up.
Let me refer for a few moments to the remarks of the member for Burnaby-Rich-mond, who came to this house a few years ago. On Tuesday, he saw fit to criticize my colleagues who had the fortitude to stand up in this house and complain about C.B.C. programming. That hon. member referred to the hon. member for Kindersley, the hon. member for Rosthern, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Red Deer. He thought it was terrible that they should get up and complain about C.B.C. programs being immoral.
That hon. member apparently feels members of parliament should not stand here and voice their objections but should rubberstamp expenditures of $100 million or $150 million of taxpayers' money by the C.B.C., which seems to have the right to put on television anything it desires. I know we have a few members in this house who call themselves intellectuals and think that the common members of this house who represent the common people of this country have no right to speak on their behalf. I call these people eggheads rather than intellectuals. As long as I am in
5980	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this house I intend to use my right to protect my constituents.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Riehmond said he represents 120,000 people and had only heard from three of them about this matter. If I had only heard from three of my constituents I would be ashamed to admit that fact in this house. I only represent 45,000 people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You don't count the cows.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This past summer when I was in that hon. member's constituency visiting some relatives I was asked what we were doing down here and why we did not do something about this situation. I asked them why they did not get in touch with their member and they replied "What's the use, he would not do anything for us". Yet that member has the nerve to stand up in this house and tell my colleagues they have no right to condemn these vulgar programs being shown across the country by the C.B.C.
The hon. member apparently was elected by the unions who paid his telephone bills, office expenses and stationery.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to correct the hon. member. I would not object if some union had paid part of my election expenses, but none did. None of them paid any money. We had to raise it all through collections and dances. The unions did not contribute one cent. If they want to offer some money next time, I might listen to them; but they did not the last time or the time before.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I did not want to raise the hon. member's ire, Mr. Chairman. I know he did not receive this support in the way of subscriptions, check-offs or anything else. I do not want to get into that subject. However, I do want to bring this matter to the attention of the committee. I believe that we in this house have the right and responsibility to see that acceptable programs are broadcast on television screens for the people of Canada.
In this connection I would refer to my good friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam, whom I respect highly and for whom I feel sorry now. This hon. member, the leader of the New Democratic party, former premier of Saskatchewan, was always in favour of censoring everything that was shown by the movies. But now he has become leader of that party we do not hear him speak on this

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
subject because he has among his colleagues these eggheads, these intellectuals, who do not let him say a word. I am sure he does not like these vulgar things being shown on the television screen. As long as I am in the House of Commons representing my constituents-


Auguste Choquette: That will not be long.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I will be here longer than you, Prince Charles. As long as I am in this House of Commons, when my constituents complain to me about the vulgar programs being shown on the television screens across Canada, I will stand in my place in the house and complain, as is my God-given right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on this subclause. I apologize to the committee for not realizing when I rose previously that we had stood subclause (d). I was saying at that time that the question of programming has exercised the minds of those in parliament for many years. There is a wide spectrum of opinion expressed with regard to this very contentious subject. At one end of the spectrum you have those who apparently hold the view that parliament should control C.B.C. television programming almost daily and pass opinion on every program as it appears. At the other end of the spectrum you have those who look upon broadcasting and those who engage in it as a group of sort of sacred cows. This group believes that parliament dare not express any opinion or offer any guide lines, in the interests of the Canadian people, to those responsible for broadcasting in this country.
I think that our responsibilities as elected members of parliament, representing all the Canadian people, is to put forward what we believe to be the interests of the Canadian people. We have a responsibility in this area, and in my mind there is no question about it. We have the responsibility to lay down guide lines and stake out conditions under which the Canadian people will be called upon to put up millions and millions of dollars every year in order to provide a national broadcasting service.
This may in some ways be a distasteful task, but it is one that we have to face. I commend the minister for her approach to this problem. If there is any doubt in one's
January 25, 1968

mind as to what our responsibilities might be, I think they are well expressed in the Fowler commission report at page 5, in the introduction. There, we find these words:
All broadcasting agencies-both public and private
are recipients of public support in the right to use scarce public assets. They must pay for these valuable rights by giving a responsible performance, and the state is fully entitled to ensure that the trust is honoured. To the extent that an adequate program performance is given voluntarily, the broadcaster can be left relatively free from detailed controls. If adequate performance is not given, it should be compelled by regulation or the franchise should be reassigned to others who will perform responsibly. Without question, the state has an absolute right to require from any broadcaster to whom the use of a radio frequency or television channel has been entrusted that he use it with imagination, distinction, and responsible regard for the public interest.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I will not bore the committee by quoting further from the report. When hon. members speak of what is acceptable broadcasting to be received in the homes of Canadians by either radio or television, I would point out that there are some who immediately raise the cry of censorship and say that it conflicts with the principle of freedom of the press, freedom of speech and this sort of thing. I admit immediately that there is a vague resemblance, some similarity, between the problem with which we are trying to deal here and the principle of free speech. The two things are far from being identical, but they do have a similarity.
Their similarity is something like that which exists in the animal kingdom. The hyena has some similarity to the giraffe. They are both mammals, they each have fodr legs, and so forth. But the differences are perhaps greater than the similarities. I object, also, to the faulty reasoning put forward by those who raise the spectre of our impinging upon the right of free speech and come to the conclusion that because the giraffe is a tall animal, a high animal, he is really the hyena.
When we are discussing free speech I would point out that even with the free speech that is allowed at Hyde Park Comer in London, where there is free speech as we know it, there are certain limits beyond which one cannot go without running foul of the law of England. The right of free speech does not give people the right to slander or the right to abuse this privilege.
Quite often the freedom of broadcasting is compared with the freedom of the press. Here again, I do not think the comparison is on all fours. In the case of the press, which to begin with is a different medium, you may buy
27053-377J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting whatever newspaper you like and, having bought it, you can ignore whatever advertisements or articles you wish. There is a selection open to the individual with regard to the press. In addition, the press has to pay its own way, generally speaking.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Except for the Canadian Press.


John Angus MacLean: That is right; there are a few exceptions. But generally speaking, as far as newspapers are concerned they have to put out a product which is acceptable to their clientele, to the public generally, or they will not sell any newspapers. There are people in the far-out fringe who frequently start publishing little magazines which purvey a particular point of view or idea; but most of them do not last very long because they do not attract the support of enough people.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I believe the Canadian people should be given a certain measure of control over broadcasting, or at least some guide lines should be laid down, because we in parliament represent the Canadian people and we give to certain private individuals or to the publicly owned corporation the right to broadcast. We assign to them channels and thereby create a partial monopoly in this field. Opportunities in this respect are not unlimited, and therefore when there is a monopoly a certain measure of public control is called for, just as it is in public utilities.
When speaking previously I neglected to mention that there are certain restrictions on the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press does not mean a complete licence to publish everything, such as pornography or libel.
To carry control of broadcasting further, so far as the public service is concerned-and this also applies to the clause we are now discussing-it is not only our responsibility to ensure the proper use of the broadcasting system, which is limited because of the scarcity of channels, but also, in view of the fact that we are acting on behalf of the Canadian people, to ensure that the product we are buying for Canadians meets reasonable standards, so far as the C.B.C. is concerned. I think it is absurd to suggest that the Canadian government must ensure that the wharf material it buys meets careful and detailed specifications but that any kind of rot would do in the programs produced by the C.B.C. for the Canadian people.
5982	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Be careful with that word "rot".


Mr. Pugh:: It goes with "management".


John Angus MacLean: Therefore, I think that the matter of programming is one to which we must give our very sincere attention.
I commend the minister and the government for making an attempt to draw up guide lines in this respect. This is a difficult job, no doubt. We should indicate somehow that broadcasters, just because they are broadcasters, are not above the law and that they have responsibilities to society; that it is not their prerogative to attack or to ridicule institutions which are part of the very fabric of our western way of life, to pollute our living rooms with all sorts of obscenities, or to glamorize for the consumption of young people the use of harmful drugs. The C.B.C. seems to have made an effort in this direction not so long ago. At one time they had the high priest of L.S.D. appearing on several programs, and, whether or not it was their intention, the effect was to glamorize the use of L.S.D. in the minds of the young people, if not of others.
It is some time since I was a member of the broadcasting committee. At that time television was just coming into use. Ever since people learned how to make fifes, the hearth has been the centre of the family home. People sat around it and conversed among themselves. But with the advent of television many families in this nation have been sitting around the "idiot box" instead of around the hearth and have been spoken to by people who set themselves up as leaders of thought. It does not matter how far out their thinking may be or how absurd it may be, what they say is given an aura of authority by the very fact that it is broadcast on the national, government-owned network provided by the government of Canada, presumably for the benefit of Canadians. It is for that reason I think it is important to set down guide lines.
Some of my friends to the left of me ask me whom I am trying to protect. I am not trying to protect anyone. I would be perfectly happy if there were some purely haphazard way in which differing points of view could be put forward on the national broadcasting system; if subjects could be picked at random and if those who supported them could go on the air as well as those who opposed them. I think that if there is a balanced presentation of various points of view the Canadian people

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
have sufficiently good judgment not to be carried away. However, what I object to is the apparent loss of control over this tremendously powerful medium and, either purposely or unintentionally, it seems to have fallen into the hands of a few people in the broadcasting industry who take it upon themselves to decide what is good for the Canadian people. Freedom of speech belongs to all citizens equally and is not the prerogative of the man with the microphone. However, the microphone gives him power to make his ideas known to millions and to drown out the ideas of those who do not agree with him because they are not given a chance to counter his views with their own opinions. Employees of the C.B.C. may hold any political ideas they like, but to propagate them on company time and at public expense over the public air waves is an injustice to their fellow citizens who do not have a great network over which to air their private ideas. It is almost as if an employee of the Royal Canadian Mint were given an opportunity to mint his own pocket money on the side. The whole idea is absurd. It is obvious that, as I have said already, we are purchasing a commodity at a cost of $150 million a year or more. The amount goes up so rapidly that I have lost track of it. It is important that we in parliament insist that the product we purchase is of reasonable quality. We should not attempt to censor any point of view but rather to guarantee that an objective presentation of the various points of view is made.
I should not like to leave the impression that I am anti-C.B.C. in all it does, because I am not. Let me say immediately that the C.B.C. has produced some excellent programs, such as, for example, "Country Calendar", "Fisherman's Log", some science programs, and even Don Messer's show, which is probably scorned by the producers of the C.B.C., or used to be at first. However, it has been listened to by more Canadians than any other program.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I think the C.B.C. does a magnificent job in many fields, but they spoil everything by their lax moral attitude, let alone their ethical attitude, as a result of which they purvey certain types of programs. Some people say: "Oh well, it is good for the Canadian people to be shocked; we have to shock them into reality". I do not go along with that opinion. I am not against shock treatment for those who are mentally ill, but I do not think that the general public needs it.
January 25. 1968

In an age when the great fight for survival is dependent on control over men's minds, it seems to me an anomaly that programs of the kind to which I have referred are broadcast. I am sure that control of men's minds is the real struggle today that is going to determine whether or not our civilization will survive.
Television broadcasting is a powerful weapon in such circumstances. Human beings have recently been described by an anthropologist in a book published on the subject as "hairless apes". His main theme is that we do not realize how much we are affected by emotions and how so little of what we do is determined rationally. Much of what we do is controlled by emotions, even though we kid ourselves into thinking that we are acting on a rational basis.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thought that applied only to women.


John Angus MacLean: No, I think it applies to men too. This sort of situation is a golden opportunity for the manipulators of this powerful medium of communication. The advertisers know this and so do the public relations men. Almost any product could be sold by the carload if there were sufficient advertising on television.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who perhaps is more qualified on this subject than any other member in the house, pointed out in a very able speech on this question some months ago that we are still not really fully aware of the very great power that is inherent in television broadcasting in particular. We can be brain-washed, for example, without knowing it. We can also be influenced.
In the United Kingdom I believe there is a little society that contends that the world is flat. I am sure that if that little group were in Canada the C.B.C. would have them on one of their programs, which would probably be presented in this way. They would probably get a very fetching, bright looking young lady and a very photogenic young man who would speak on the side of the argument that the world was flat. They would then get some doddering old fellow, a Colonel Blimp type, who contended that the world was round.
In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, a sort of biography of this old fellow would be unfolded, and if they discovered that he had once almost belonged to the Klu Klux Klan, or something objectionable like that, this would be revealed so as to provide plenty of built-in
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting prejudice right from the start. In this way, without any reliance at all upon logic, they would have a few simple people believing that the world was flat after all. They would say: "How behind the times these squares are who still think that the world is round. Why, that is an old idea; it is a thousand years old. Let's get with it".
It is this kind of nonsense, Mr. Chairman, to which I object. As I have said, in this day and age when the struggle for men's minds is of crucial importance it is a terrible anomaly that we set the highest possible standards for our medical doctors, for the preparation of drugs and for anything to do with the human body, yet allow any sort of trash to be administered to the human mind.
My humble submission, Mr. Chairman, is that if we are going to provide a broadcasting service which will be relayed into the living rooms of the nation, then it should at least be housebroken. In this regard I refer especially to the C.B.C. The private broadcasters generally do better because if their service is too controversial they will not get a sponsor, and they do not want that to happen. But the C.B.C. apparently could not care less whether or not they have a sponsor for programs which deal with some of these far out notions, because the long suffering taxpayers are going to pick up the chit. These programs are shoved down our throats whether we like them or not. We just pay the bill. We cannot question the C.B.C. because it is a sacred cow. There is a prevailing attitude that parliament dare not question the C.B.C.
My contention is that a discussion of this clause is valid and of importance for one reason, if for no other. It is important in that it gives members of parliament a vehicle to express the views of the people they represent. I hope that the new president of the C.B.C. will take it as one of his first responsibilities to read what the members of parliament, the representatives of the people, think about broadcasting as it has been carried on in Canada. I believe that this important service for Canadians should, as I say, at least be housebroken before being allowed into the living room of every Canadian.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I should, first of all, like to congratulate the hon. member for Queens on the address he has just given this evening on the matter that is now before the House of Commons. I had some remarks to make prior to the Christmas recess, and I thought I had dealt with the
5984	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting problems raised by the electors in my constituency, and by other people across Canada, in a reasonable way without saying some of the things that could have been said in connection with the whole tenor of C.B.C. programming in this country over the past few years.
I would not have taken the trouble to speak again at this time had it not been for the fact that an assertion has again been made by one of those belonging to that party in this house which across the country has become the champion of easy divorce, of easy abortion and other degrading practices; the party that has become in the minds of the public the champion of those things that undermine what we have come to believe are the basic concepts of family life, of church and of government in Canada.


Robert William Prittie: Who do you mean-the
Liberals?


Edward Nasserden: I do not need to say who I mean, Mr. Chairman, when I make that statement. Everyone in the country knows that the members of the New Democratic party have led that crusade, if you can call it such.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You are no credit.


Edward Nasserden: I cannot help feeling that, since we are dealing with a medium of communication so powerful, subtle and all pervasive-


Frank Howard: The hon. member is really nasty today. He must have practised his speech.


Edward Nasserden: As I was saying, Canadians have not yet realized the full power of this medium of communication. We should be particularly careful, therefore, to let those who are charged with the responsibility for broadcasting policy and programming know some of the views of some people in this country. Look at what has happened in the past. A deliberate attempt to undermine family life, church, and government itself in this country seems to have been made. When the Prime Minister appears before the television cameras, those who operate the cameras place him in a most unfavourable position relative to the cameras. This has happened to the present Prime Minister and to the previous prime minister. Such an attitude should not be displayed by those who are employed in an organization which ought to be a unifying force in this country, an organization that

DEBATES	January 25, 1968
should show our people something of which they can be proud.
We hear certain members of the N.D.P. giving encouragement for the televising of certain types of programs in this country. People in this country subscribe to more than one religion, and here I am referring to the Christian religion. Other religions exist in the world, and those who espouse them nearly always believe in a hereafter. Yet, look at the encouragement that is given to the broadcasting of those programs which undermine everything that builds a nation, which encourage our people to strive for a better way of life. One cannot help asking oneself whether a deliberate attempt has not been made to undermine our nation.
Members of the N.D.P. in this house, and others, support laws legalizing abortions; they supported laws for easier divorce. They support other laws that have a degrading effect-


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Edward Nasserden: Let those members devote their attention to solving the problems that have been caused by the increasing urbanization of our society, by the movement of our people from rural to urban centres. Let them help to ameliorate the terrible loneliness that afflicts some people; let them concentrate on means of uplifting the members of our society. Let them pursue those activities that will help our people. One of our troubles is that, because minority groups in this parliament can bring leverage to bear on important issues, the members of this parliament find it difficult to deal with many problems that beset the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Garbage.


Edward Nasserden: Radio and television have important roles in this country. The C.B.C. should be encouraged to broadcast programs that will help to weld this nation together, that will bring an appreciation of true values and enhance those values which have made human life better. The C.B.C. ought to do that instead of glamourizing, as the hon. member for Queens so aptly put it, those aspects of society that are dull, degrading and sap the moral integrity of a people. Because programs like those are shown elsewhere is no reason for them to be shown in Canada, and we should remember that. For these reasons, I think the government should have a little more control over the top brass of the C.B.C., and over broadcasting. I do not think any minister answering for the C.B.C. should ever
January 25, 1968

again have to say in this house what the present minister said about that organization. No minister, as happened in the past, should have to reply to complaints brought forward by hon. members by saying, "We can do nothing about the matter."
Hon. members will recall what happened to Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the former prime minister, when he first sent a letter to the C.B.C. He was slapped down by that organization, along with other members of the house, because of the stand he took.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Why should a member of the House of Commons or a minister not write to the C.B.C. and say that something is lacking in its programs? Why should not the minister answering for the C.B.C. have power to put a little fear into the hearts of those who would try to use the corporation for subversive activities? When I see what has been done recently by way of attack on family life, the church, and government in this country by that same organization, I say that constitutes subversive activity which undermines the future of those generations to come for whom we hope so much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to make any general observations about this bill but I feel I must say something about clause 2(d). Possibly, if we can persuade the minister, that clause can be changed or amended. That is why I am on my feet. I want to suggest some ideas that might usefully be incorporated in this clause.
I was much impressed by some of the speeches this evening. I was impressed by the speech of my hon. friend for Battle River-Camrose, who referred to the censoring of movies. The films that are shown in our moving picture theatres are subject to censoring by agencies of our provincial governments. We accept that. Yet, we are told-and this criticism is implicit in the remarks of certain hon. members-that the programs which are brought into our living rooms should not be subject to censorship; that those programs are above criticism, and they must not be criticized. I do not subscribe to any such doctrine.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Hugh John Flemming: I should like the minister to pay attention to me.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I always do.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you. The minister occupies a unique place in the hearts and minds Of many of our citizens, and it is not because of her good looks entirely.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I must listen to this.


Hugh John Flemming: It is because she had enough courage to say that there was rotten management in the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I have even heard suggestions that the minister should be the leader of the Liberal party, because of the stand she took on this important issue. Those suggestions did not come from Liberals.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is the trouble.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Hugh John Flemming: Well, there is always some chance of the redemption of sinners. Perhaps we shall even get to the Liberals after a while.
Let us consider the programs in which the C.B.C. gives the news to the people of this country. Surely, giving the news should be a factual process. Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that very often the news given to the people of Canada is commented on in almost the same breath as it is announced, and in my opinion the listening public very often feels that this commentary is part of the news. I think there should be a regulation providing that some time should elapse between the giving of the news and the presentation of commentaries on the news. This happens to be my personal opinion and I am not asking the minister to accept it without reservation. However, I do think it has some merit.
Let us get down to the subsection we are considering. Let us read it carefully. I have been talking about programming all the time, but I wish to refer particularly now to the language of the subclause because it seems to me that the language used there is incomplete. It does not say what should be said. In the words of the subclause before us-
-the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy-
5986	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting I have not the slightest objection to the broadcasting media taking the stand that they should give publicity to the different angles from which a matter of public controversy can be regarded. I see nothing wrong with this as long as it is done in a fair way. But after the word "controversy" we read this:
-and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard-
This is where in my view the subclause is incomplete. It does not say, and I draw the attention of the minister to this, in whose judgment it must be of high standard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Board of Broadcast Governors.


Hugh John Flemming: But the subclause does not say so.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 15 does.


Hugh John Flemming: I am talking about subclause (d) at the moment. I believe there should be something here that brings responsibility back to parliament. The minister says it is within the judgment of the B.B.G. But the B.B.G. does not represent the people of Canada. This parliament does.
I listened a few minutes ago to an eloquent speech by my hon. friend from Queens. He said things we all know to be true. We have all seen them. I have seen in the last two or three weeks the glamourization of things that are going to tear down the valuable standards which have been built up in this country of ours. There is no question about that. Why they should be emphasized is more than I shall ever be able to understand. Everyone within the sound of my voice knows this to be true.
I suggest it would be useful if words were incorporated in the clause to the effect that broadcasts should be of a high standard "in the judgment of the minister answering to parliament for the C.B.C" I believe parliament is entitled to deal with a minister who does have some degree of control over the corporation and who can exercise judgment with respect to what programs are of a high standard. Otherwise, all we get out of it is an argument; some people think certain programs are of a high standard and others think they are not. What I believe we can all agree on without the slightest argument is this: an element of decency should be insisted upon in the programs of the C.B.C. in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	January 25. 1968


Hugh John Flemming: It comes back to this: who is to be the judge? This is the question which may be asked, and I think it is a proper one. The subclause before us does not tell us. In consequence, the people in charge of C.B.C. will say: "Everything is perfectly all right." We have had examples of what they have to offer. We have, it is true, had other examples of productions which have been excellent. In my opinion, parliament should insist that the minister who answers to parliament for the C.B.C. should have the right to say when a program is not of a high standard. She or he, as the case might be, would not, then, have nearly as difficult a time, because the C.B.C. would be conscious of this control; it would know it could not get away with these programs, and see to it that the programs offered did not conflict with the ideas of decency held by people in this country.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would answer a question.


Hugh John Flemming: I will try.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know he is an old friend and a man of great reasonableness. Earlier I explained to one of the members of the committee that in England the postmaster general performs the function which the Board of Broadcast Governors has performed in Canada in the past. In this bill the Board of Broadcast Governors is directed by parliament to licence broadcasting stations. If the hon. gentleman's suggestion were followed and the Secretary of State or another minister were made responsible for passing judgment as to whether programs were of a high standard, the exercise of such judgment would inevitably be after the fact, as I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree. If the Secretary of State were responsible, either I would have to sit all day long watching programs after they had gone out over the air, or else I would have to watch all the programs in rehearsal before production. I do not think it is possible for a minister to do this. We must remember, we are not experts; we know nothing about this kind of thing, quite apart from the fact that my taste may not be the taste of a single other person in this house, or even in the country.
If I were responsible, parliament might find things in an even worse mess. It would still be largely a matter of taste, and the minister might well say of a particular program which had been criticized: "I thought it to be in good taste, myself." This is the difficulty. As to parliament exercising its
January 25, 1968

judgment, I remember speaking with the former minister of justice on this subject and saying there should be some way in which parliament could make its feelings known.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Yet by its very nature parliament, as we know it, cannot do this and so has to operate through an executive or through a body. This job cannot be done through a member of the cabinet. It cannot even be done by a committee of the house. Every day this would be a job that would have to be done. The only way to do it is to set up a body, delegate authority to it and make it responsible. This is what all the individuals who looked at Canadian broadcasting have recommended. This is what was done in 1958 with the establishment of the B.B.G. I have great sympathy with what my hon. friend has suggested, but it could not conceivably work, even if the person concerned had the most perfect taste on earth.


Hugh John Flemming: I am not suggesting that the hon. lady, or whoever might be the minister, act as a censor, but I think there should be a deterrent in this legislation. The C.B.C., which comes here year after year asking for millions of dollars, should be made to feel that there is someone to whom it is responsible, and that there is a medium through which it could be controlled to some extent.
It seems to me it would be most appropriate that a minister who answers to parliament for the C.B.C. should have some power or some authority so far as programs are concerned. Let us look at what would happen in practice. The minister's misgivings would not materialize. If the C.B.C. had any doubts about a program it would contact the minister before broadcasting it.


David Orlikow: Poor minister.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I am not responsible for any of these interruptions. I have the floor at the moment. If someone wants to speak after I am finished he will have that right. In the meantime, I have the floor and I do not propose to yield it to anyone.
I would like to be able to persuade the minister that this would be a power that would be good from the point of view of the Canadian people in general. Probably it would not be good so far as C.B.C. management is concerned but I am not concerned about that. It makes no difference to me. I am concerned about the Canadian people. I am concerned, as pointed out by my hon. friend 27053-378
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting who preceded me, that we do not tear down the things which we consider are valuable, things which have been built up over a long period of time, and which some of us think are being subjected to a campaign of destruction.
I believe someone has to be the judge of a high standard of programs. The minister says this is the B.B.G. I do not think the members of the B.B.G. ever see a program until it is shown on television screens in their living rooms. How could they regulate programs? What could they do about them? I am one of those who believe in responsibility for people who are elected here by the Canadian electorate. I don't believe in delegation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: This parliament is the body to which the C.B.C. should report. This it does through the minister, and I think someone should be appointed to judge the standards of programs. I would be perfectly willing that the present minister be that judge.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If this horrible responsibility were placed upon me, can my hon. friend suggest how I would be in a position to judge programs on private television?


Hugh John Flemming: The point I was trying to make to the minister was that she would be appealed to only when there was a question of doubt. There would be no responsibility as long as there was no doubt about a program, whether private or public. Speaking of private programs I saw one which I watched by myself for three hours. It depicted a young minister in Scotland, Peter Marshall, growing up, coming to the United States, taking over a church, and becoming chaplain of the United States senate. It was a fascinating program. It was one of those programs that build you up and make you think what great things television can do. There are lots of programs like that. It would only be ones about which there was a degree of doubt that would be referred to the minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Whose doubt?


Hugh John Flemming: Surely, there must be some doubts in the C.B.C. Somebody in the C.B.C. must have had some doubt about some of the rotten programs it has carried. I cannot believe that all the hundreds of men and ladies involved were in favour of those programs. Even in the C.B.C. I think there would be a large element of difference of opinion. So
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting far as private television stations are concerned, surely the sponsors would take some responsibility for the type of program broadcast. I bring these things to the attention of the minister in the hope that consideration of them will lead to an improvement of this bill.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, some months ago the minister, who is responsible for the C.B.C., made certain statements which many Canadians thought were long overdue. She has consistently refused to explain exactly what she meant by them, but she suggested very forcefully that there was something wrong within the C.B.C. To the surprise of many, I for one leapt to the hon. lady's defence because I thought here was a minister who had the courage to bare a very important matter in public.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Some of my colleagues are very keen to back up freedom of speech. I can understand that any suggestion of tight censorship is abhorent to most people in a democratic country. It is this very type of censorship of opinion which some of my own colleagues, quite honestly I believe, hope to protect, but I say it is in the direct danger because the C.B.C. has a monopoly. It certainly has a monopoly in the outlying areas of this country which I happen to represent. In some cases it is only the C.B.C. which reaches these people and the C.B.C. has a virtual monopoly on the expression of opinion. Because I have gone so far as to back the hon. lady, I think I must explain why I backed her when she said the C.B.C. was rotten. I do not think she meant that the head of the C.B.C., Mr. Oui-met, was rotten. I think she meant that he did not do the job the public was paying him to do. This is the very duty which the hon. lady shrinks from doing. She does not feel qualified to censor all programs or any one particular program. I think that is perhaps a little overstatement of the case. I do not believe that we must set down any specific rule of behaviour or decency in order to have decent programs.
I should like to go back to my own experience, because I believe this is the only thing about which one can speak with authority. I had a father and mother in charge of my home. We had no written code of what was decent or indecent, but when we talked to our sisters or to anyone in our house we knew what the standard of decent behaviour was. Perhaps in the case of the C.B.C. we do not have the inevitable correction which would come as a result of falling below the

standards, but the people who produce these programs are knowledgeable people and know perfectly well what is right and what is wrong. They are taking advantage of the monopoly they have and are hiding behind even some of my own colleagues who may have overstated the case for what they call freedom. I could not agree more with the hon. member who just spoke when he said that if there were an implied standard which could be enforced in the slightest degree by a courageous minister, such as I thought the hon. lady was when she made her statement, these people would be very careful not to fall below that standard.
Many people fought with me when I supported the stand the hon. lady took. I do not think she has to back down from that stand. I am ready to quarrel with anybody who criticizes her for that and this includes those who sit in my own party, those who sit to our left, and those who occupy the seats behind the hon. lady in the government ranks. The standards of some of the programs produced by the C.B.C. I have no hesitation in saying, fall below accepted standards. They are a disgrace and should not be allowed on the Canadian air waves. This is particularly the case because, under some circumstances, we have no control over the programs which invade the parlour of our own home. It has been said that we can turn off the television set. We can do this if we are there, but with the complexities of life today we cannot always be there. Our children can turn on the set, and there is no monitor once a program comes on the air.
It has been said that we cannot do anything about this because the fat is in the fire. I think we can do something about it just on the basis of common sense. If these people put this type of program on the air, there must be an authority to inform them they will never do it again, and certainly not at the taxpayers' expense. If the hon. lady thinks that this job is too difficult for her, I suggest she should hand it over to somebody who has the normal courage of any free Canadian. At my age, I do not think seeing a filthy program will do me any particular harm. In my job as a policeman it was necessary for me on many occasions to delve into the lower side of human nature, yet I feel I have been able to maintain all my standards.
I do not believe this situation need be permanent, that we must face this with defeatism and say we cannot do anything about it. I believe here, in parliament, we can do everything about it. If these people knew that
January 25, 1968

their jobs depended upon cleaning up their own programs they would do so. I think the common sense of Canadians would come to the fore and these people would police themselves just as I did when I was a child because I knew the wrath that would descend upon me if I fell below our family standards. The family standards of the people of this country are well known. Anyone who does not have this type of common sense is not fit to produce programs.
If the hon. lady does not feel she has the power which I believe she has, then that power must be vested in someone. If Mr. Davidson does not have it then we must ask ourselves whether his assistant has it or whether anybody between the hon. lady who represents us and the man who produces the program has that power. There must be some authority somewhere. I do not intend to lay down any type of code except the code of common sense. We must give someone the power to police these programs, whether it is done before they are put on or afterward.
This subject, tied in with the question of abortion and the other changes to the Criminal Code, has been the cause of many, many letters and complaints. This is the thing most people are worried about today. I just answered this evening two letters on this subject. I told these people that I will do all I can. All I can do at the present time is try to convince enough members that we must be sure to put in this bill the teeth which are necessary to police the air waves of Canada. We can only do this through this bill and under the authority of the minister. I do not believe she should be afraid that people will accuse her of abusing her authority because she and no one else at the present time has any authority over the C.B.C. If she is willing to give us the authority to bring common sense into the matter of protecting our young people from some of the things shown on the Canadian air waves, she can rely on my support.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say a few words on the subamendment.
I followed closely the statements of several members and wish to congratulate the member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) for having set forth his logical doctrine and point of view on the C.B.C.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Mr. Chairman, I do not accept, however, the point of view of the member for Bumaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) who spoke of centralization. In fact, he said that private stations should disappear and be replaced by C.B.C. stations.
Mr. Chairman, we need state-ruled stations, because the state renders great services, but so does private enterprise.
In my opinion, private enterprise, competing with the state, is in a position to maintain programs, contribute to the education of the people, render great services at a lower cost than the state. Indeed, everything managed by the state costs three times more, and then some, than what is managed by private enterprise. We know the sums now spent by the state to maintain the C.B.C. I think that if these sums were in the hands of private enterprise, it would render greater services than the state, because the operating costs would certainly be reduced by half, if not by two thirds.
That is why private enterprise must be maintained as much as possible. Private enterprise renders greater services than the state, not only from the standpoint of publicity but from several others that I could mention. The small manufacturers and businessmen cannot advertise on C.B.C. but they can advertise on private stations and there set out their views and convince the people to help them to develop and expand Canada's economy.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about morals. In my opinion not enough people concerned with the programming or broadcasts of the C.B.C. care about morals. I would ask the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to try to find moralists who will give C.B.C. programs a more moral, concrete, human and social character, and reform certain elements in our society. If we want a healthy society, the elements of which it is composed must likewise be healthy, and if they are corrupted by people such as some of the C.B.C. employees who say all sorts of things and have no morals at all, we will have a corrupt society.
That is where we must intervene. Several members referred to that matter and I wish to talk about it also. We should encourage morality, we should find a very deep ideology from a moral point of view to change the ethics of society, in short to rebuild society. We have made great strides in technology and other fields but, as far as morality is concerned, we have lost ground. It is absolutely necessary to improve moral standards.
January 25, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting In my opinion, it is the duty of the minister at the present time to ask the C.B.C. to improve the moral character of its programs and even to hire experts in ethics to show the people of Canada what is life, what is a human being.
Human beings must be respected and they can only be respected by morality, never otherwise. Morality is no longer anything at all; in fact it no lojiger exists. We must build it up. Unless we do, we will witness the most catastrophic abuses the world has ever known. It is absolutely essential that all Canadians put the shoulder to the wheel and do everything that must be done to raise the morality of their compatriots. We must do everything that is humanly possible to protect the morality of society. Morality, that is what we lack in our country; in fact, that is what we must watch and that is why I have made these few remarks on the present amendment.
Once again I would like all of us to put the shoulder to the wheel and help the minister to find the proper ideology to promote morality to the highest possible point within the C.B.C.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question on the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Subamendment (Mr. Valade) negatived: Yeas, 34; nays, 52.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the subamendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment of the hon. member for Red Deer?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Thompson) negatived: Yeas, 35; nays, 51.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall the subclause carry?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect of subclause (d) with which I wish to deal. Subclauses (a) to (f) of clause 2 deal with broadcasting in general, both public and private, and subclause (g) deals with the national broadcasting service, or the C.B.C., in particular. I want to refer to one part of
[Mr. Latulippe.l
subclause (g) but I am using it in these remarks in connection with subclause (d).
Subclause (g) (iv) requires that the national broadcasting service, the C.B.C., should contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity. This is a charge upon the public broadcasting service only. When the bill was given second reading on November 1 I expressed some doubts about the words in this subclause charging the public broadcasting service to contribute to the development of national unity. I did not do so because I am against national unity any more than anyone else, but the opportunity is there for witch-hunting and for picking out people in a broadcasting service who you feel are not doing what you want them to do. After listening to the speeches in the house on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the opportunities for witch-hunting will certainly be there. But the government apparently wants this provision in the bill, and it occurred to me that if the concept of national unity is so important and broadcasters should contribute to it, it ought to be a requirement in respect of all broadcasters. It is a very vague term and is very difficult to define but if, as I say, the government wants it included in the bill it should be important enough to be a guide for all broadcasters.
There are in this country more private television and radio stations than there are C.B.C. stations. Therefore, it seems to me that if television and radio can be used to influence the way people think and act, the private broadcasters also have, of course, a very great deal of influence. If this charge to contribute to national unity is necessary, it should, I believe, be included in subclause (d), for two reasons; first of all, because it fits in better there in connection with the requirement to air views on matters of public controversy and to allow for dissent.
The second reason, which I have already mentioned, is that the private broadcasters have a very large audience. I thought of this matter the other day when there was an exchange between the hon. member for La-to the hon. member the minister had this to pointe and the minister. The hon. member for Lapointe was talking about the television station in Quebec city, CFCM-TV. In her reply say, as reported at page 5814 of Hansard for January 22:
I am further informed by Television de Quebec that their editorial policy favours freedom as against communism, private enterprise as against socialism and Canadian unity as against separatism.
January 25, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	5991
Presumably the operators of that station are in the same position as the owners of a newspaper; they can, entirely on their own, determine what is their editorial policy. Therefore, if they choose to promote a particular line of thought, that is their editorial right. But what would happen if that station should change hands? Let us suppose that the hon. member for Lapointe, on one of his trips to France, raised enough money to buy that station and had complete control of it. Then, presumably the editorial policy of the station could change in accordance with the views of the new owner. It could then decide that separatism should be the editorial policy of the station rather than Canadian unity. I do not imagine that the hon. member for Lapointe would advocate socialism rather than private enterprise, but he could do so if he wished, since he would be the owner of the station. He could do any of these things.
I have had some experience in this field and know that radio stations regularly editorialize. I do not complain about that; they are free to do this. If my hon. friend from Lapointe, or somebody else with his views, owned such a station, they could advocate disunity. We will not confine our examples to the province of Quebec entirely. There is another province of Canada which has a rather separatist-leaning government. I refer to the province from which I come. More than one cabinet member in that province has suggested that Canada should join the United States. Yes, I am speaking of British Columbia. If people with that point of view bought a radio station, they could editorialize and suggest that we no longer remain in confederation but join the United States. This obviously would not be promoting national unity.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that if broadcasters are to promote national unity, all broadcasters should do this, both public and private, and this particular phrase should be included in subclause (d). With that in mind, I move:
That clause 2 (d) of Bill C-163 be amended by placing a comma after the word "comprehensive" and adding Immediately thereafter the words "should contribute to Canadian unity",


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I speak tonight following a question asked on December 14 in which I requested the Department of National Health and Welfare to strengthen its staff for the collection of D.B.S. statistics and to provide additional resources so that the staff could be increased for the collation of statistics. The question on December 14 was prompted by a reply to a written question on December 13 which appears at page 5363 of Hansard. In the answer, we learn that in the health and welfare division of D.B.S. there are some 105 persons involved in collecting statistics relating to health, some 31 persons occupied in collecting statistics relating to education, but no persons directly involved with statistics concerning welfare. When we keep in mind that the Department of National Health and Welfare is second in spending only to the department of defence, it seems surprising to me that there is no statistical documentation of the different trends toward which this high spending department is going so far as welfare programs are concerned.
Fabulous sums of money are being spent on a variety of welfare programs, yet adequate statistics are not being kept to determine the cost benefit to the Canadian people. Welfare budgets have doubled and re-doubled and will likely continue to increase, and it is certainly difficult to make any projections without an adequate statistical base. I would have thought that the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan would have required the collection of national welfare items of similarity, but the dilemma still facing those of us interested in finding similar information relating to welfare in the different provinces is that there is a great variety of methodology in the collecting of statistics. For example, the province of Ontario has quite a sophisticated system of statistical analysis, and yet areas like the Atlantic regions and other provinces do not nearly approach this way of collecting statistics. Therefore, it is not easy to discover how many married people in Canada are, for example, living separately.
5992	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As we deal in our present legislative program with what the Prime Minister called "good society" measures, such as those on divorce, birth control, abortion and so forth, some of these statistics would have been very useful. We do not really know how many people there are in the country who have sig-significant family problems. We can go from agency to agency and from province to province but we do not have an overall national picture. If I wanted, I could inquire of D.B.S. and get fairly accurate information concerning the number of ponies on Sable island or the total horse population in Canada, but we cannot find out how many children are living in foster homes or are placed in adoption each year. To me this seems to indicate a desperate lack in the collection of very vital information.
In the area of child care, I have mentioned already the problem of obtaining accurate statistics with regard to children living and growing up away from their natural parents, either in foster homes or in child care institutions. We should be able to ascertain those things by requesting our most capable organization, the D.B.S., to collate the information. It could do this. First of all, it could give us the information and second, this would force provincial governments to set up a uniform base for the collection of statistics.
I am not one who wishes to collect information simply to pile up figures. This should only be done for a purpose. We are now quite conscious of the need for research, for example. I am afraid that very often we are stymied in our research in the welfare field owing to the lack of statistics. Generally, we find ourselves taking 10 per cent of United States figures, the United States usually documenting its research quite well, and we adopt this figure as being fairly close to the situation in Canada. However, I suggest that is not an adequate foundation upon which to conduct proper research.
My direct question, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: Will the department strengthen its staff for the collection of welfare and related statistics and allocate additional resources and staff to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in replying for the minister of health and welfare I want first to ask whether the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) is conversant, and I believe he is, with the fact that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is an adjunct of the Department of Trade and

DEBATES	January 25. 1969
Commerce, not of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Siegfried John Enns: If that was a wrong reference, I apologize.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think the hon. member has put his finger on the difficulties that arise here. One needs only to look at the headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail today, which stated the position the government of Ontario is taking on the question of medicare, to realize that the question of jurisdiction is also of significance in this matter.
The question of the adequacy of welfare statistics is a long and complicated one. The hon. member is quite right in his assumption that the situation is less than ideal. In general, the statistics concerning welfare programs wholly administered by the federal government are at a reasonably acceptable level. This department has been able to respond reasonably well to requests for statistics relating to the social welfare programs wholly administered by it.
The problem is much more complicated when the provinces are involved and where statistics reveal varying levels of adequacy of provincial programs. In the last two or three years this department has convened two federal-provincial conferences on statistics, concerned mainly with the field of public assistance. Substantial progress was made at these conferences, and the minister is hopeful that under the Canada Assistance Plan it will be possible to secure statistics covering much wider range of welfare matters than was formerly possible. It will be some time, however, before adequate statistics are available, partly because of the lack of research staff and statisticians in provincial welfare departments and partly because a number of the departments are in the process of converting to the use of computers.
The hon. member has made a remarkable contribution this evening, and I am sure that the Department of National Health and Welfare will be pleased to take the matter under consideration.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) what plans his department had for the promotion and development of secondary and manufacturing industry in
January 25, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	5993
British Columbia, which is now in the position of having something over 6 per cent of the labour force out of work, the second highest group in Canada.
The minister replied that to recite the steps that are being taken would take too long during the question period but that he would be glad to advise me directly about this matter. I was not sure what he meant by "directly" and I have been expecting a long, detailed letter from him; but this letter has not yet arrived. If the minister wants to deal with the matter in this way and the three minutes that remain for him this evening are not sufficient, then I will look forward to receiving his letter. Apart from the fact that his answer was in a gentle way political and also somewhat arrogant, none the less his department was established partly for the purpose of promoting industrial development in Canada.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
We in British Columbia, and particularly in the northwestern area of Skeena which encompasses nearly all the northwestern section of British Columbia, enjoy an economy that is primarily based on the extraction of natural resources. Most of our industry is of the extractive type and much of the natural wealth which we obtain from our land is shipped out of the area, often out of the country, to be used in secondary or manufacturing industries elsewhere.
We have a fair amount of mineral wealth, timber and power in the form of coal and hydroelectric power. We have much potential power. The opportunities for secondary and manufacturing industry in the area are tremendous.
It is well known that human labour adds to the value of any material to which it is applied. The raw ore which comes out of the ground is not as valuable as the ore which has gone through a concentrating process. Raw concentrate is not as valuable as concentrate which has gone through a smelter and been turned into ingots. At every stage of manufacturing process value is added to raw material. We wish to promote secondary and manufacturing industries in our area which will take advantage of our raw materials and natural resources.
There is ample opportunity for the development of a smelter system in the area. At the moment, largely as a result of this government's insistence and its declarations of policy, we export the mineral resources of our area out of our nation to another country and contribute to the increasingly high standard
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of living of that other country. I shall mention no names because it may be thought that I object to another country's increasing standard of living, an increasing standard made possible by the raw materials we export to it 1 do object to our government permitting that state of affairs.
We could easily establish a secondary aluminum industry in the area; we already have an aluminum smelter. No facilities for transforming aluminum ingots into sheets, tubes, pipes or other manufactured forms of aluminum exist. Ample opportunities for such industries to operate successfully exist in the area.
Similar remarks apply to the forest industry. Many examples of the sort of thing I mentioned could be enumerated. Because the Department of Industry was set up to promote industrial development in areas in Canada which could use that sort of development, and because parliament accepted the proposition that a Department of Industry ought to be set up, I submit that something concrete and worth while along the lines I have suggested ought to be undertaken.
Though the minister, under the rules, has only a few moments to reply, I hope that he can explain what he has done, what is taking place and what plans exist, so that the people in northwestern British Columbia whose employment opportunities fluctuate according to the weather and other factors can look forward with some hope to the time when something such as I have described, some smelting industry or some manufacturing industry based on lumber or aluminum, can be made a reality. It is necessary for our people to have some hope, and I should appreciate some guidance from the minister.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked me a general question the day before yesterday and I am afraid that three minutes will not suffice to outline the background of the operation of the department as that operation affects British Columbia.
I would point out, however, that the purpose of the Department of Industry as outlined in the act passed by parliament is to foster and promote the growth of an efficient manufacturing industry in Canada and not in any particular part of Canada. Insofar as the hon. gentleman feels that the department should interest itself especially in a particular region of the country, I would say that it is the task of the department to establish the kind of climate within Canada as a whole in
January 25, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which secondary manufacturing can flourish in an increasingly efficient way. To this end we have a number of programs which have been discussed and approved by parliament. I would mention specifically the program for the advancement of industrial technology designed to increase productivity and economy in manufacturing in all of Canada. The act providing incentives to increased research and development is of a similar character and is nationwide.
With respect to British Columbia specifically, there is a program devoted directly to the relief of areas of chronic unemployment. This is known as the designated areas program and those areas of British Columbia which suffer from high chronic unemployment have been designated under this plan. In the south central part of the province where this program has been in operation it has proved
reasonably successful. There has been a total of some 53 projects involving new capital investment of some $50 million in secondary, manufacturing or processing industries. This has resulted in the creation of some 1,755 new jobs.
This is the one overall program which is directed specifically to a particular area as distinct from Canada as a whole. I would point out that we have been conducting a series of seminars among entrepreneurs and manufacturers across the country looking toward an improvement in efficiency and the enlargement of manufacturing industry. I myself attended a most successful recent one in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. minister since his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
January 25. 1968



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 16, 1968.
My dear Premier:
Further to recent consultations regarding arrangements for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on constitutional matters, I should now like to forward for your attention the proposed agenda for our meeting which takes into account comments received from provinces: item 4 has been included specifically at the request of Premier Smith of Nova Scotia in response to my invitation for suggestions as to the agenda.
I should also like to take this opportunity to confirm that the conference will begin on Monday, February 5th and continue through February 7th.
You will recall that I raised with you in earlier correspondence the question of whether or not some of the sessions should be made public. It would seem generally acceptable that at least part of the conference should be open to the news media and I therefore propose that we agree to make public the opening sessions on the first day when the various governments normally present their initial statements. Similar consideration could also perhaps be given to the closing session so that there may be the widest possible public knowledge of the conclusions reached at the conference. A decision regarding the remaining proceedings could best be taken, in my view, in the course of our deliberations.
In accordance with past practice, details of the administrative arrangements will be forwarded to you within a few days.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L.	B. Pearson
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud, Q.C.,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, New Brunswick.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Opening statements
2.	Rights of Canadians
a)	recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism
b)	a constitutional Bill of Rights
3.	Further constitutional review
4.	Questions of regional disparity
5.	Other matters [Translation]
Similar letter sent to all provincial Premiers in English and to the Premiers of Quebec and New Brunswick in French

[Stage Direction]
January 16, 1968.
Ottawa,
My dear Premier:
Further to recent consultations regarding arrangements for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on constitutional matters, I should now like to forward for your attention the proposed agenda for our meeting which takes into account comments received from provinces: item 4 has been included specifically at the request of Premier Smith of Nova Scotia in response to my invitation for suggestions as to the agenda.
I should also like to take this opportunity to confirm that the conference will begin on Monday, February 5th and continue through February 7th.
You will recall that I raised with you in earlier correspondence the question of whether or not some of the sessions should be made public. It would seem generally acceptable that at least part of the conference should be open to the news media and I therefore propose that we agree to make public the opening sessions on the first day when the various governments normally present their initial statements. Similar consideration could also perhaps be given to the closing session so that there may be the widest possible public knowledge of the conclusions reached at the conference. A decision
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1969
regarding the remaining proceedings could best be taken, in my view, in the course of our deliberations.
In accordance with past practice, details of the administrative arrangements will be forwarded to you within a few days.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud, Q.C., Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, New Brunswick.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Opening statements
2.	Rights of Canadians
(a)	recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultural-ism
(b)	a constitutional Bill of Rights
3.	Further constitutional review
4.	Questions of regional disparity
5.	Other matters

[Stage Direction]
This telegram was sent to the Office of the Premiers of all provinces except Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1968

[Stage Direction]
MOMO GA177GGA177	(MNB219	FN100)
51/47 2 EXTRA

[Stage Direction]
DA057 35/31 FD EDMONTON ALTA 2 955A MST


[Stage Direction]
This telegram was sent to the Office of the Premiers of all provinces except Quebec.
[Stage Direction]


December 29, 1967.

[Stage Direction]
O.	G. STONER

[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1968
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador THE PREMIER St. John's
2 January, 1968
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you so much for your letter about the Constitutional Conference, which I acknowledge in the Premier's absence.
My Colleagues and I would be delighted to have one or two of your representatives come to St. John's for a preliminary exchange of views on the Conference. I would hope that they could meet with the Premier, and also I think they should get in touch with my Colleague the Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. A. Hickman, and with the Premier's Parliamentary Assistant, Edward Roberts.
Sincerely yours,
L. R. Curtis, Acting Premier.
December 28, 1967
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of February 1 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable J. R. Smallwood,
Premier of Newfoundland,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
CHARLOTTETOWN PEI JAN 5/67 RT HON LESTER B PEARSON PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
December 28, 1967
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 31 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable Alexander Campbell,
Premier of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
January 25, 1968

[Stage Direction]
January 4, 1968
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 28th indicating that some of your representatives were to meet some of our officials, with other Ministers and with me, on January 30th with reference to the Constitutional Conference of early February. I am sure your representatives will be welcome on that date. Perhaps they would not mind arranging directly with Mr. Innis G. MacLeod, Deputy Minister, Executive Council, the times to meet the various officials, Ministers, and me.
Sincerely yours,
G. I. Smith
December 28, 1967.
My Dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 30 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable G. I. Smith,
Premier of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
[Stage Direction]
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 29 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely, (Signed) L. B. Pearson
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Legislative Buildings,
Fredericton, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the dates of January 24, 25 and 26 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) L. B. Pearson The Honourable Daniel Johnson,
Premier of Quebec,
Government House,
Quebec, Que.
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1968
[Stage Direction]
December 28, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the dates of January 24, 25 and 26, for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely, Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable John P. Robarts, Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Ontario,
Toronto, Ontario.
Manitoba
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Winnipeg
January 4, 1968.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have your letter dated December 28th and the telegram of the following day from the Cabinet Office in regard to preparations for the constitutional conference whose opening I now note is suggested take place on February 12th.
The week beginning February 12th will be convenient to my colleagues and to me, and we shall look forward to receiving further details of the conference in due course.
So far as the visit to Winnipeg of one of your colleagues is concerned, I would say that January 23rd, the date mentioned in your letter of December 28th, would be convenient, but that January 20th, which was suggested this week by the Privy Council Office,
would not be so since I have an engagement in the country to open a bonspiel on that Saturday.
Yours sincerely, Walter Weir.
The Rt. Honourable Lester B. Pearson, P.C.,
[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of Januar 23 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable W. Weir,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you
January 25. 1968
[Stage Direction]
may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 22 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed
by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable W. Ross Thatcher,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 18 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable E. C. Manning,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
December 28, 1967.
My dear Premier:
Our preparations for the Constitutional Conference of early February are now in progress and I hope to be in a position to send you some background papers in the near future.
I believe that it would be very worthwhile if one or two of my representatives were to meet with you in your Capital during the month of January for a preliminary exchange of views, and to note any suggestions you may wish to offer concerning the matters on the agenda of the conference, or its procedure. In addition to other talks they may have with your officials, and other Ministers if you so wish, I think it would be very helpful if they could also meet with you personally.
I would suggest the date of January 19 for such a meeting, if this is convenient to you.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable W.A.C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, British Columbia.
PREMIER'S OFFICE Province of Prince Edward Island
December 20th, 1967
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you very much for your letter of December 1st in which you have outlined in general terms your proposals for a Federal-Provincial Conference to consider the possibility of establishing a Constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada.
I wish to confirm that the date of February 5th is satisfactory to me, and that a delegation from the Province of Prince Edward Island will be present for the Conference.
I have no definite views with respect to the sessions being open to the public and the press. Closed sessions usually tend to be good working sessions.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander B. Campbell,
Premier,
Prince Edward Island
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1968
Nova Scotia THE PREMIER Halifax
December 7, 1967
CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge yours of December 1st with reference to a Federal-Provincial Conference to consider establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights. I would be prepared to attend on Monday, February 5th, and to continue on the following day, and as required further.
It seems to me that there are really two problems which tend to make many millions of Canadians very unhappy.
One, of course, is that of language and culture.
The other question is that of disparity in regional development. If we are going to tackle one we should at the same time and with the same degree of anxiety tackle the other. It therefore seems to me that it would be appropriate to place on the agenda of the proposed meeting the whole question of regional disparity.
Sincerely yours,
G. I. Smith
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Canada


[Stage Direction]
Toronto, Ontario, December 6, 1967 Confidential
My dear Prime Minister;
Monday, February 5th, is agreeable to Ontario as the day on which the Federal-Provincial Conference might be convened next year to deal with various constitutional matters. We will also be ready to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
In regard to making some of the sessions public, I think that this should be given a great deal of careful consideration. Certainly in the context of bringing our people to realize the gravity of our discussions and perhaps the divergence of points of view, some public
sessions would seem to be indicated. On the other hand, we must never lose sight of the fact that the decision making process is not helped or made easier when carried on in the white glare of publicity. I have always been of the opinion that there is a happy medium to be followed.
My suggestion would be that we give some consideration to dealing with some general subjects in the early stages of the Conference, where points of view might be put, with the latter part of the Conference held in camera. This could be done quite easily by a close examination of the agenda and by its proper arrangement to meet these requirements.
I would be happy to discuss this with you when we next meet.
Yours sincerely,
John P. Rob arts
Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.
Manitoba
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Winnipeg 1
December 8, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of the 1st and particularly for your kind good wishes on my taking office as Premier of Manitoba and leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party.
I have consulted my Cabinet colleagues and can inform you that the suggested dates for the federal-provincial conference beginning Monday, February 5, 1968, are satisfactory to the Manitoba government. I have noted what you say regarding the agenda of the conference and will certainly write to you in due course to suggest any related matters which might be added to it.
In view of the experience gained at the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference in Toronto last week, you might consider having the opening meeting of the federal-provincial conference in February open to the public and to the news media including television. In this way the position papers set forth by the representatives of the Government of Canada and of the various provinces would be made known to the widest possible public. Whether
January 25, 1968
[Stage Direction]
or not at a later meeting there should be public access to our deliberations might perhaps be settled by the conference itself.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Walter Weir.
The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M. P., Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
Saskatchewan

[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1967
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada My dear Prime Minister:
Your suggested date of February 5th for the Federal-Provincial Conference to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada is suitable. I would hope that the discussion would conclude on the following day.
I agree that matters which you mention for discussion are related to the question of a constitutional Bill of Rights.
I believe that the conference should be closed for obvious reasons. However, I suggest that the opening session when the participants make their opening formal statements could be open to the public. Also, you might wish to arrange for a press conference immediately after the conference.
Yours sincerely,
W. Ross Thatcher Premier

[Stage Direction]
Similar letter also sent to the Premiers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in English and to Quebec and New Brunswick in French.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 1, 1967.
My dear Premier:
You will recall that I wrote you on August 15th proposing that a Federal-Provincial Conference be convened early next year to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. All provinces have now responded and expressed general willingness to participate. It would be helpful for planning purposes if we could now agree on a possible date for our meeting.
I should like to suggest that the Conference might begin on Monday, February 5, with the intention of continuing the discussion on the following day and, if need be, on Wednesday. I would appreciate if you could let me know as soon as possible whether this suggested date is suitable to you.
In so far as the agenda of the Conference is concerned, our intention, as you know, is to focus discussion on a constitutional Bill of Rights. Since our original proposal, we have received the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which will be made public next week, a copy of which will be sent to you. I think we should provide some time for a discussion of the Report and its recommendations. In addition, the Provincial Governments have also now had an opportunity to have some discussions between
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1968
themselves which bear on both of the matters suggested above for the agenda. It may well be that you would also wish to suggest other related matters which might be added to the agenda.
I would also appreciate your views as to whether or not some of the sessions should be made public, bearing in mind of course that our discussions may eventually lead to decisions by both levels of government.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable E. C. Manning,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
[Stage Direction]
Similar letter also sent to the Premiers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in English and to Quebec and New Brunswick in French.
Confidential
Ottawa, December 1, 1967. My dear Premier:
You will recall that I wrote you on August 15th proposing that a Federal-Provincial Conference be convened early next year to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. All provinces have now responded and expressed general willingness to participate. It would be helpful for planning purposes if we could now agree on a possible date for our meeting.
I should like to suggest that the Conference might begin on Monday, February 5, with the intention of continuing the discussion on the following day and, if need be, on Wednesday. I would appreciate if you could let me know as soon as possible whether this suggested date is suitable to you.
In so far as the agenda of the Conference is concerned, our intention, as you know, is to focus discussion on a constitutional Bill of Rights. Since our original proposal, we have received the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which will be made public next week, a copy of which will be sent to you. I think we should provide some time for a discussion of the
Report and its recommendations. In addition, the Provincial Governments have also now had an opportunity to have some discussions between themselves which bear on both of the matters suggested above for the agenda. It may well be that you would also wish to suggest other related matters which might be added to the agenda.
I would also appreciate your views as to whether or not some of the sessions should be made public, bearing in mind of course that our discussions may eventually lead to decisions by both levels of government.
Yours sincerely, (signed) L. B. Pearson
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud, Premier of New Brunswick,
Legislative Buildings,
Fredericton, New Brunswick.
[Stage Direction]
This letter sent to Premier of Manitoba only.
Confidential
Ottawa, December 1, 1967
My dear Premier:
Before touching upon the subject matter of this letter, may I express to you my very best wishes on having been chosen by your party as its leader.
As you may know, on August 15th I wrote to your predecessor in office proposing that a Federal-Provincial Conference be convened early next year to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. All provinces have now responded and expressed general willingness to participate. It would be helpful for planning purposes if we could now agree on a possible date for our meeting.
I should like to suggest that the Conference might begin on Monday, February 5th, with the intention of continuing the discussion on the following day, and if need be, on Wednesday. I would appreciate if you could let me know as soon as possible whether this suggested date is suitable to you.
In so far as the agenda of the Conference is concerned, our intention, as you know, is to focus discussion on a constitutional Bill of Rights. Since our original proposal, we have received the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which will be made public next week, a copy of which
January 25, 1968
[Stage Direction]
will be sent to you. I think we should provide some time for a discussion of the Report and its recommendations. In addition, the Provincial Governments have also now had an opportunity to have some discussions between themselves which bear on both of the matters suggested above for the agenda. It may well be that you would also wish to suggest other related matters which might be added to the agenda.
I would also appreciate your views as to whether or not some of the sessions should be
made public, bearing in mind of course that our discussions may eventually lead to decisions by both levels of government.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable W. Weir,
Premier of Manitoba,
Legislative Buildings,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 26, 1968