1968-01-22

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
27053-363£

[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 22, 1968

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep dismay that I learned, as most members, of the death of Hon. Rene Tremblay which occurred just before noon today. We knew that he had been ill, but we expected that he would still be with us for a long time.
Mr. Tremblay had a rather brilliant career. He studied in Canada and in Europe. He was at first professor at Laval University and then became deputy minister of the department of industry and trade in Quebec. In 1963 he was elected member for Matapedia-Matane. Soon afterwards he was appointed Minister for Citizenship and Immigration-he was thus one of my predecessors-to become eventually Postmaster General.
Mr. Tremblay was not only our colleague, he was everyone's colleague and he was also a personal friend. We are of the same generation not only as far as age is concerned but also from a political standpoint.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that as other members of this house, we are particularly affected by this sudden demise, particularly when it is realized that it follows upon the death of Hon. Mr. Favreau and our friend, Maurice Rinfret. This might lead us to ponder on the effects on health of political tensions which may possibly be felt more particularly by the group to which I have the pleasure and the honour to belong.
The death of Hon. Rene Tremblay is surely a loss for the province of Quebec but it is also a loss for the whole country. I am sure that the members of this house will be unanimous in expressing to his wife and to his children their most sincere condolences.
Personally, I regret that, before leaving us, he did not have the good fortune of seeing certain injustices committed against him repaired as they should have been. But this is
probably what one can expect in politics; we are in a ring where the opponents do not always pull their blows and it is in circumstances such as those that we realize that we are mere human beings.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, to the name of Hon. Mr. Tremblay we must add that of another friend, a sincere friend of all, that of the hon. member for Saint-Jacques, Maurice Rinfret. He presided over the proceedings of the house with a great deal of humour, of kindness. I do believe that regardless of political affiliations everyone liked Maurice Rinfret. I think, therefore, that the house should also agree to express its condolences to Mrs. Rinfret.
Mr. Rinfret was ill for a very long time. He was seriously ill when he was last with us here, and yet he never complained and no one even noticed it.
At this moment of our political history, Mr. Speaker, when there are so many problems which we must face collectively, it is particularly painful to witness events such as these.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself and the members of the official opposition with the comments of the minister regarding the late Maurice Rinfret and Hon. Mr. Tremblay.
I was shocked to learn during the recess of the death of Mr. Rinfret who served in this house as the member for Saint-Jacques and as Deputy Chairman of Committees. Although it was not my privilege to serve with him in the house for any length of time, I quickly became aware of the position of respect and esteem that he held among members of all parties in the House of Commons. I was not aware of his illness and it was a great shock to me when he passed away during the recess of the house. Certainly we would wish to extend our sympathies to Madame Rinfret and members of the family.
Mr. Tremblay, as the minister indicated, served his province and the country in both elective and non-elective offices, having been in the public service of the province of Quebec before he entered the House of Commons. He was educated in both official languages and his education spanned two continents. He
57G0	COMMONS
Tributes to Deceased Members attended Laval and McGill Universities and completed his education on the continent of Europe.
Although he resigned from the cabinet over two years ago he continued to take an active part in and make a positive contribution to political life in this country, particularly with regard to leading questions of our day concerning national unity and economic affairs, which he was particularly well qualified to discuss by reason of his background and education.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the opposition I should like to extend my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Tremblay and her children, as well as to the members of the Liberal party.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this party I should like to join with those who have already spoken in expressing our very deep and sincere regret at the passing of two of our colleagues.
Mr. Ren6 Tremblay, who was for some time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we came to know very well. I can speak for members of this party in saying that we always found him accessible and courteous. He approached the problems of his department with a deep sense of humanity and with a fine compassion, which we greatly appreciated.
The passing of our colleague Maurice Rin-fret is also to be regretted, Mr. Speaker. Many of us came to know him quite well during his time in the house. Personally I had the privilege of being with a Speaker's delegation which visited the Soviet union and Czechoslovakia something over two years ago. We found him a delightful companion and a person who was deeply motivated for the welfare and benefit of this country.
We are exceedingly sorry at the passing of these two members of this house. We should like to extend, through you, Mr. Speaker, to their wives and families our deepest sympathy in their hour of bereavement.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group wish to join their colleagues in regretting the loss of two men who have laboured in this house. It is said that life is full of surprises and we have
tMr. Stanfield.l
DEBATES	January 22, 1968
another demonstration of this truth this afternoon. I also believe that the two men whose passing we regret have served our country well.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of sitting with Hon. Mr. Tremblay on the committee on the national anthem of Canada and that is where I had the opportunity of realizing his good sense, his good judgment, the firmness of his decisions, as well as his deep convictions.
As for the lamented Mr. Maurice Rinfret, I could not imagine on Friday before Christmas, when he came to shake my hand at Montreal Central station before I took my train, that I was shaking his hand for the last time. Maurice Rinfret was a great friend and I am not aware that he had a single enemy in the house. His passing is a real loss for his party and for this house.
So, in the name of this group, I wish to offer my most sincere condolences to the two bereaved families and assure them that the memory of these two men will long remain in the hearts of French Canadians as well as of all Canadians labouring in this house.


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, as we think of our two colleagues who have been removed from our midst we share the sense of loss and the feelings of deep regret which have been expressed in the house this afternoon. Though we knew that Maurice Rinfret had been seriously ill, we hoped that he would return to the house and that he would be spared for a considerable time. It was a shock to hear that he had passed away.
It has been said that every member of the house held Mr. Rinfret in the deepest respect. I say that for many of us the feeling went beyond respect; we held him in affection, especially when we considered his qualities of character and the attitudes that he evidenced on many occasions.
We are reminded again of the shortness of life in the passing of Hon. Rene Tremblay, which was perhaps more unexpected than that of Mr. Rinfret.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I	want to assure the house again that we share the sense of loss felt on the passing of these two colleagues and we join in expressing sympathy to the loved ones who are left, trusting that divine grace will be vouchsafed to them in this their hour of sorrow.
January 22, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: While joining, on behalf of all hon. members, in the words of regret we have just heard at the passing of Hon. Rene Tremblay, may I speak very briefly about the man who for two years was associated with the functions of Speaker of the house and Chairman of the Committees. A loyal colleague and a wise adviser, a faithful worker of the first hour and the last, Maurice Rinfret gave himself completely to his parliamentary responsibilities. In the discharge of his duties in the chair, he set at all times and in all circumstances an unfailing example of impartiality and honesty. The house will remember Maurice Rinfret as a good and fair man.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday, January 12, the Toronto Daily Star misquoted me in a headline as saying of the government that "it lacks integrity". Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. In fact, I said nothing which could be considered as meaning that the government lacks integrity, fiscal or otherwise.
In replying to a question I said that whoever becomes the new leader must attach great importance to fiscal integrity-the fiscal soundness of the country as a whole. In this, of course, the role of the federal government is just one part of the national fiscal structure. I was speaking of the country, not of the government, and in any event I did not say anything which would justify the attribution to me of a quotation such as that which appeared in the newspaper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) presented the eighth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: For text of report see Votes and Proceedings.]
Statement on Foreign Exchange FINANCE

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I should like to make a brief statement on the foreign exchange situation and table a press announcement made during the week end.
During the ten days preceding this week end there have been abnormally large sales of Canadian dollars in the foreign exchange markets, and we have had to meet these demands by sales of United States dollars from our reserves. This has been evident to those in the market and has been reported in the press.
This selling pressure resulted in part from widespread nervousness in international financial circles about currencies generally following the devaluation of sterling and the abnormal demands for gold. More immediately, however, it appears to have resulted in part from highly exaggerated fears of the effects on Canada of the United States balance of payments regulations, and misunderstanding of the intention of the United States authorities in that regard. In order to clarify this situation, we discussed it with the Secretary of the Treasury and his officers during the week end and they have issued a statement on the matter which has been reported in the press, and a copy of which I wish to table.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister permission to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: On our side the Governor of the Bank of Canada, following discussions with the chartered banks, issued a statement last night saying it had been agreed that the banks would discourage the use of bank credit to facilitate abnormal transfers of funds abroad by Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies and would also discourage the use of bank credit by such companies to meet requirements in Canada which in the past have normally been met by parent companies. These discussions with the banks were undertaken by the governor after he and I had discussed the matter and agreed that such action was desirable.
The governor also increased the bank rate yesterday from 6 per cent to 7 per cent in the light of recent developments in the exchange market. He had consulted me as usual before taking this action. I believe this move was
5762	COMMONS
Statement on Foreign Exchange appropriate and prudent to protect the Canadian dollar against speculation and strengthen our position. I regret, as we all will regret, that external circumstances have made this step necessary.
Today the market situation has improved. The value of the Canadian dollar in the market has risen and we have bought some United States dollars to ensure that the market readjustment was an orderly one. It is of course too early to draw definite conclusions, but the change is distinctly encouraging.
Our present exchange parity is appropriate to our economic situation and should be and will be maintained. We have very large exchange and gold reserves to defend it, and we also have access to large supplementary sources of finance through the International Monetary Fund and through a reciprocal support arrangement between the Bank of Canada and the federal reserve system, which was increased last fall to $750 million. Our basic position is safeguarded by our unrestricted access to the long-term capital market of the United States, where Canada and Canadian borrowers enjoy high credit ratings. We are fully prepared, if this should be necessary, to use our reserves and the other resources available to us, to defend the Canadian dollar in the exchange markets.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject on which, of course, one must weigh his words with some care. I am pleased at the reassurance of the minister regarding the determination to maintain the value of our dollar. I am also pleased that he is able to report to the house that the initial results, at least, of the increase in the bank rate appear to be favourable, and certainly I know every member of the house hopes most fervently that these initial, apparently beneficial, results will continue and that nothing further will be required.
I am sure we all have a tremendous confidence in the future of our country, and it should be a matter for all of us who are responsible to make certain that we realize the potential of our country. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be inappropriate for me to say that the results in the country of the increase in the bank rate are not likely to be very desirable from a domestic point of view, and that consequently it is regrettable that the Governor of the Bank of Canada found it necessary to make this decision.
rMr. Sharp.]
DEBATES	January 22. 1968
I emphasize that in the circumstances I am not criticizing his decision. I am quite prepared to accept his judgment in this regard. Nevertheless I think that this is a further indication of the importance of confidence in government or, if you like, in the country- confidence in our willingness and readiness to assure that our country will maintain its economic strength.
Just as I had occasion in the course of the so-called mini-budget debate to suggest that the Canadian people were being asked to pay higher taxes as a measure of trying to restore confidence in the government, I now think that the increase in the bank rate is a further price that the Canadian people will pay with regard to confidence in and credibility of the government.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to appear to be lecturing the government in any pedantic way, but I think it would be appropriate for me to remind members of the government that they have a heavy responsibility during coming months, or for at least as long as it remains their responsibility to form a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope they will make every effort to demonstrate to all concerned that they are prepared to do what is necfessary to ensure the economic future, strength and stability of our country, because it is really a question of confidence. I hope the government will pursue policies and attitudes which will inspire confidence. As I take my seat I again repeat that I hope the measure that is taken by the Bank of Canada will have not only the initial result but the continuing results that are considered necessary in this situation.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I am well aware that this is a very delicate matter on which to speak and that one must weigh one's words very carefully, because the basis of the operation of a modern monetary system is confidence. I myself am very disturbed by the inevitable results of the action the government has taken, action which it was obliged to take because of its previous policy decisions about which I have spoken on previous
January 22. 1968	COMMONS
occasions; that is, the incompatible policies of the fixed exchange rate plus the agreement on exchange reserves which are continually coming in conflict.
1 am not at all sure that the people of Canada will be satisfied with the way in which the government and the Bank of Canada have dealt with this problem of protecting the Canadian dollar, because the Canadian people will have to suffer for it. There is no question but that the general level of interest rates will rise, that our already acute situation in respect of housing will become worse, that government financing will become more expensive and as a consequence our economy will slow down even more.
I would have hoped that in view of the critical situation in which we find ourselves the government would be prepared at this time to re-assess its whole policy with regard to our exchange rate and its whole policy with regard to our relations with the United States. I and some of my colleagues have suggested earlier in this house that the situation at the present time, even before this immediate crisis had arisen, called for rethinking in respect of our attitude with regard to the fixed exchange rate. It is demonstrated by the present economic problem in this country that we should go back to the floating interest rate and the control of the inflow and outflow of capital from Canada.
The government's present action seems again to be placing the burden on the ordinary Canadian citizen, because it has tied its hands with regard to the monetary and fiscal policy so that it is unable to cope with this problem without curbing the development of the Canadian economy in a way which, in the end, must fundamentally undermine our position internationally far more than any temporary attack on the Canadian dollar,- and which attack would be very severe if continued for any length of time.
I would again point out, as I did a few weeks ago in this house, that when we were on the floating exchange rate which lasted for 12 years the fluctuations were all within a very narrow range of 3 cents United States during that whole period. I would hope that somewhat the same situation would occur now. But in order to prevent anything more drastic in the way of upward pressure, which is equally as dangerous as downward 27053-364
DEBATES	5763
Statement on Foreign Exchange pressure, I would suggest that the government consider the imposition of emergency exchange controls.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern the minister has expressed in saying he regrets the external circumstances which exist that have made it necessary for the Bank of Canada to step up the interest rates, as it has done. I would just like to add that this serves as an additional reminder that the economic situation both within and outside the country is most serious at the present time. The policy of raising federal housing interest rates to the present level, instead of drawing more capital out of the private sector, has served only to push interest rates still higher. This action today will have the same effect. One wonders just how high interest rates can go.
I should like to remind the minister as he seeks to deal with these problems, many of which are outside his own direct control, that never since 1929 have we faced a problem of high interest rates such as that we have now, and that this action, which may have been necessary at the immediate moment, will serve only to increase further our financial problems. In this regard it relates also to the continued policy of those who control international monetary values in respect of gold being held at the present price. One wonders how long in the future it will be before the price of gold will have to be increased, its having held the same price it holds now while other commodities have doubled or even quadrupled in price.
We share the expression of regret the minister has made in his statement, but we hope he will use every possible effort to bring about some more permanent and more satisfactory solution to the problems of international liquidity and stability of our own dollar, and the problem of the continual rise in the cost of interest and the continued tight money policy which makes Canada's development so difficult.



MEAT INSPECTION ACT


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-196, to amend the Meat Inspection Act (inspection legend).

January 22, 1968
Questions


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Meat and Canned Foods Act and regulations, meat must be prepared in establishments approved by the government and under the constant control of government veterinary inspectors.
However, section 68 of the regulations provides that the legend on meat inspected shall be marked in English only. This bill provides that the legend shall be bilingual and decorated with the maple leaf appearing on the Canadian flag.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the coverage provided by the Act; to establish a new schedule of contributions to be paid by employers on behalf of employees covered by the Act; and to establish a new schedule of benefits corresponding to the new schedule of contributions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has the government any immediate plans for the construction of either a maximum or minimum security penal institution in Prince Edward Island?
2.	Has the Department of the Solicitor General, or any department of government, ever acted on the suggestion of Premier Campbell to visit Prince Edward Island and look over potential sites for the establishment in that province of a maximum security penal institution and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Has a request been received from the government of Prince Edward Island for financial assistance towards the construction and operation of a jail farm or some other type of minimum security

institution in that province and, if so, has favourable consideration been given thereto?
4.	Does any agreement exist between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island under section 16 (1) of the Penitentiary Act which provides that the government of Canada may enter into an agreement with the government of any province for the confinement in penitentiaries of persons sentenced under a criminal law of Canada to imprisonment for more than 6 months but less than two years and, if so, what would be the approximate cost per prisoner to the province?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. No.
2.	Officials of the Department of the Solicitor General met with Premier Campbell and the deputy attorney general of Prince Edward Island at Charlottetown on Monday, October 2, 1967 and discussed the penitentiary and gaol situation. No further action was taken because the federal government does not propose to alter the policy to establish its maximum, medium and minimum security institutions for the Atlantic provinces in the Dorchester-Springhill area of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
3.	The government of Prince Edward Island has discussed with the government of Canada the possibility of financial assistance towards the construction and operation of a minimum security institution on Prince Edward Island. For the reasons given in paragraph 2 no action was taken.
4.	No.


FRENCH AND ENGLISH SPEAKING DIRECTORS IN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	How many directors are there for each "proprietary corporation"?
2.	How many of the directors in each corporation are (a) French-speaking (b) English-speaking?
3.	Are any steps being taken by the government to assure a distribution of the two groups and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: All the proprietary corporations advise as follows:
1 and 2. See attached list.
3.	In making appointments to the boards of directors of proprietary corporations, the government gives the most careful attention to all the qualifications necessary for these positions, including linguistic ability.
1 and 2. Farm Credit Corporation: 1. Five.
2.	(a) One; (b) Four.
January 22, 1968

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:	1.
Eleven. There is one vacancy at present. 2.
(a)	Three, (b) Seven.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
1.	Ten. 2. (a) Three, (b) Seven.
Polymer Corporation: 1. Nine. 2. (a) One.
(b)	Eight.
Note: Three of these nine directors speak both English and French.
Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited: 1. Seven. 2. (a) None, (b) Seven.
Note: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources hopes to appoint one French speaking member on the above mentioned corporation in the near future.
Eldorado Aviation Limited: 1. Five. 2. (a) None, (b) Five.
Note: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources	hopes	to	appoint	one	French
speaking member on the above mentioned corporation in the near future.
Cape Breton Development Corporation: 1. Seven. 2. (a) One. (b) Six.
Note: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources	hopes	to	appoint	one	French
speaking member on the above mentioned corporation in the near future.
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation: 1. Five. 2. (a) Two. (b) Three.
Note: Two of these three directors speak both English and French.
Northern Transportation Company Limited:
1.	Six. 2. The mother tongue of all six directors is English. No information is available as to their facilities with the French language.
Export Credits Insurance Corporation: 1. Eight. 2. (a) Four, (b) Four.
Air Canada:	1. Nine. 2. (a) Two. (b)
Seven.
Canadian National Railways: 1. Twelve. 2.
(a)	Four, (b) Eight.
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation: 1. Seven. 2. (a) Two. (b) Five.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, 1. There are no directors. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act provides only for a president and two other members. 2. (a) One.
(b)	Two.
The Seaway International Bridge Corporation: 1. Eight. Four Canadian and four United States citizens. 2. Of the four Canadians, three speak both English and French, and one speaks English only.
Questions


CENTENNIAL TRAIN VISITS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Will the centennial train be kept intact for
(a)	further visits to Canadian communities, and also (b) to undertake promotional tours in the United States?
2.	Will one of the centennial caravans be sent to the United Kingdom and Europe for promotional purposes?
3.	Is it the government's intention to retain any of the other caravans for continued educational and promotional purposes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the centennial commission:
1.	Serious consideration has been given to the feasibility of maintaining the confederation train for further visits to Canadian communities and promotional tours of the U.S.A., and decision has been made, in view of the heavy cost involved, not to maintain the train for either purpose.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS FREIGHT LOSSES
Mr. Coales: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport received any explanation from the Canadian National Railways for the loss of freight loadings by that company and, if so, what is the nature of such explanation?
2.	What are the comparable freight loading figures for the Atlantic provinces by the Canadian National Railways for September and October, 1967, and September and October, 1966?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, the management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Effective early in the year, there was an unusual and unexpected drop in demand for transportation services prevailing in Canada and the United States. The falloff became more pronounced in September and October. In the nine months from January to September, Canadian National was down about 100,000 carloads of revenue freight compared with the same period in 1966. In October, traffic dropped 12 per cent. Canadian National carried 226,000 carloads in October 1966 which represents a significant drop of
27,000	cars. Other railroads in Canada and the United States have had a similar experience. For example, net income for Class 1 railroads in the United States dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first three months of 1967, 45 per cent in the second three months and 65.7 per cent in the months of July, August and September. In the Atlantic provinces in particular,

January 22, 1968
Questions
carloads of forest products, grain, mine products, coal, steel, gypsum and crushed rock were all down.
2.	The management of the railways also advises that it is not possible to answer the question in the form asked as the system is not administered by provinces but by regions. The figures for the Atlantic Region, which includes lines in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and those in the province of Quebec, east of Riviere du Loup and the NTR line east of Charny, are as follows:
1967	1966
September	21,668 25,417
October	23,623 25,604.


OTTAWA-HULL-FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What federal buildings does the government intend to build in (a) Ottawa (b) Hull, during the next three years and what will be the cost of each?
2.	What federal buildings were built in (a) Ottawa (b) Hull, during the last three years and what was the cost of each?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the departments of Public Works and National Defence as follows: 1, No accurate information can be provided in respect of Part 1 of the question as every new federal building project is subject to the provision by parliament of funds in the departmental annual estimates.
2.	The following is a list of the new federal buildings within the city of Ottawa for which construction was completed in each of the last three fiscal years. No such buildings were completed in the city of Hull during those years.
Fiscal Year 1964-65
Agriculture Processing and
Service Building	$	165,406
Radio Testing Laboratory	542,362
Animal Breeding Building	426,655
Fiscal Year 1965-66 Department of Veterans Affairs Records Storage and National Film Board Stills Laboratory	2,324,045
Radiation Protection Building 1,825,056
Fiscal Year 1966-67
Environmental Health Centre	3,117,350
Administration Building for National Research Council	3,204,932

Fiscal Year 1966-67 National Library and Archives
Administration Building for Department of National Health and Welfare (Brooke Claxton Building) Administration Building for Department of Agriculture (Sir John Carling Building) Supply and installation of four transportable classrooms at Canadian forces base, Uplands
Addition to operations building-(Leitrim)
13,121,485*
7,507,639*
11,426,986*
29,454
516,609
*The amounts shown include estimates of final costs which have not yet been paid.


EXPO '67-RENTAL PAYMENTS TO QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	What was the total government expenditure on the rental of guest accommodation in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, during Expo '67?
2.	Did the federal government lease an entire floor of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Montreal, for the duration of Expo '67?
3 What other accommodation was leased by the federal government for visitors during the period April 27 to October 29, 1967?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Privy Council office and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1. The total expenditure, as at November 20, 1967, on rental of guest accommodation at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel during Expo '67 amounts to $137,048.83. Guests include the official visiting parties and the accompanying Canadian officials. The above figure includes prearranged staff gratuities.
Eight thousand, eight hundred forty-eight dollars by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the accommodation of police personnel responsible for the security of visiting heads of state and other state visitors during Expo '67.
2.	An entire floor of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel was not leased for the duration of Expo '67. A block of rooms, however, was leased by the Commissioner General for Visits of State 1967 from April 27 to October 20 inclusive. By agreement with the hotel these rooms could be rented out if they were not required by the Commissioner General.
January 22, 1968

3.	No accommodation was "leased" in the same sense at other hotels. However, normal reservations were secured well in advance at the Windsor Hotel, Ritz Carlton Hotel and the Chateau Champlain in Montreal when the need arose. The same arrangements were made for accommodation at the Chateau Laur-ier in Ottawa.


DEUTERIUM OF CANADA LIMITED HEAVY WATER PRODUCTION
Mr. Basford: 1.	Regarding the answer given to question 484 on November 8, 1967, what quantity of heavy water was stipulated for production by Deuterium of Canada Limited between July 31, 1966, and March 1, 1968?
2.	What is the estimate of the cost of the heavy water that will have been purchased from abroad between July 31, 1966 and January 1, 1968?
3.	Did the government of Canada expect to sell abroad any heavy water acquired by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from Deuterium of Canada Limited and, if so, what was the estimate of the total price of the heavy water that was to have been sold between July 31, 1966 and January 1, 1968?
4.	What are the basic terms of the contract made on September 9, 1966?
5.	What provisions do the two contracts with Deuterium of Canada Limited contain for compensating Canada for extra costs and losses incurred because of failure of Deuterium of Canada Limited to produce on schedule?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Approximately 300 tons.
2.	Approximately $2,800,000.
3.	Not prior to January 1st, 1968.
4.	The basic terms of the contract are that Deuterium of Canada Limited will construct a heavy water production plant and produce stipulated quantities of heavy water and that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will underwrite the sale of such heavy water by guaranteeing to purchase unsold heavy water at stipulated prices. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has an option to purchase all or any part of such heavy water.
5.	Although two contracts have been executed only the September 9th, 1966 is in force since the 27 th February, 1964 merges in the later contract. The September 9th, 1966 contract contains no provision for compensating Canada for any costs or losses incurred because of late delivery. The contract does contain a schedule of prices dropping from $20.50 per pound for the first 1,000 tons in four steps to $16 per pound for the fifth 1,000 tons. Should Deuterium of Canada fail to meet the
Questions
delivery schedule spelled out in the contract, the next lowest price will become applicable on the date when in accordance with such schedule delivery should have been effected.


* APPLICATION OF INCOME TAX TO GIFTS TO PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Bell (Carlefon): 1.	Would the Minister of Finance consider recommending to parliament an amendment to section 27 (1)	(b) of the Income Tax Act so that
gifts made by a taxpayer to Her Majesty in the right of a province or gifts made by a taxpayer to a municipal corporation would enjoy the same status of deductibility as gifts made to Her Majesty in the right of Canada?
2.	Have representations for an amendment to this effect been received from (a) any provincial government (b) any municipal corporation?
3.	If so, from which ones?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows: 1. This question concerns budget policy. If the government proposes any change in the Income Tax Act affecting deductions in computing taxable income it will be announced at the appropriate time.
2.	No, but representations have been received directly from several museums.
3.	Not applicable.


HAMILTON, ONT., POST OFFICE-PURCHASE OF TROLLEY CONVEYOR
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Was a trolley conveyor purchased by the Hamilton post office in 1961 for which a contract was let on January 16, 1962?
2.	What was the quoted cost of the conveyor, and what was the actual cost including additions?
3.	What has been the cost of maintenance up to February, 1965?
4.	What firms tendered and what were the amounts tendered?
5.	Is this conveyor still in use?
6.	If not, on what date was its use discontinued and for what reason?
7.	What was the total cost of this equipment to the taxpayer?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, the Department of Public Works purchased a trolley conveyor for the Hamilton post office.
2.	The price quoted on July 13, 1961 was $81,745 exclusive of taxes. The ultimate price covering the cost of mechanical and electrical alterations, protection against falling mail bags, and taxes, was $126,481.60.
Questions

January 22, 1968
3.	$165.
4.	No tenders were received for this installation. At the request of the Post Office Department, a contract was negotiated with G. W. King of Canada Limited, Burlington, Ontario, who were the sole manufacturers of the Stanrun chain trolley type of conveyor. I am informed that officers from the engineering branch of the Post Office Department had seen applications of the conveyor in the United Kingdom postal service. They believed that it would not only solve the special requirement at the Hamilton post office, but was the type of conveyor they wished to install as an experimental unit.
5.	No.
6.	I am informed by the postal authorities that the use of the conveyor was discontinued on February 22, 1965, because it could not be kept in a reliable working condition. Continued efforts to operate it would have disrupted the handling of mail in the Hamilton post office.
7.	$126,646.60.


EXAMINATION OF PRICE-SALARY SITUATION
Mr. Godin: 1.	In the framework of the proposed government program to reduce expenditures, have any persons been employed to date to assess the price and salary situation in Canada and, if so, how many?
2.	How many other persons will be so employed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Finance as follows: 1 and 2. Officers of the Department of Finance do this as part of their regular duties, although this year more than normal attention has been given to it.


EXTERNAL AID BY CANADA
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the total amount of external aid given by Canada for the year 1968-67?
2.	What are the names of the countries receiving the above external aid and what was the amount each country received?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Parliament appropriated $207.7 million in 1966/67 for Canada's bilateral aid programs. In addition, credits authorized for developing countries under Section 21-A of the Export Credits Insurance Act amounted to $61.7 million. Total allocations to developing countries in 1966/67 also included $11.7 million in uncommitted development loan funds appropriated in earlier fiscal years. The total bilateral aid program consequently amounted to $281.2 million.

2.	See accompanying table giving bilateral external aid allocations 1966/67.
Allocations Under Canada's External Aid Program 1966/67 (000,000)
Bilateral allocations
South East Asia			
India 156.2t			
Pakistan	27.4		
Ceylon	4.5		
Malaysia	2.7		
Others	4.3 195.1		
Africa			
Francophone			
countries	11.1		
Nigeria	6.5		
Ghana	4.0		
Tanzania	2.3		
Kenya	2.0		
Uganda	1.0		
Other Commonwealth			
countries	2.7	29.6	
Europe			
Greece	4.8*	4.8	
Commonwealth			
Caribbean			
Jamaica	3.5		
Trinidad	3.6		
Guyana	2.0		
Little Eight and			
British Honduras	4.0	13.1	
Latin America			
Mexico	15.2*		
Argentina	3.2*		
Other countries	10.0	28.4	
Other allocations			
CUSO, UN food pro-			
gram contingency	10.2	10.2	
Total-bilateral			281.2
Multilateral allocations-Total			39.3
Grand Total			320.5t
* Figures represent ECIC commitments only.
t This includes an ECIC commitment of $38.5 million.
t This figure includes a carryover in uncommitted funds of approximately $11.7 million from previous years, while the current year's appropriation totalled $308.8 million.
January 22, 1968


SALARIES PAID TO NATIONAL DEFENCE PERSONNEL
Mr. Ormiston: What was the gross annual salary paid to (a) civilian and (b) military personnel employed either temporarily or permanently in the Ottawa area at National Defence Headquarters, Canadian Forces Headquarters, Materiel Command, Defence Research Board, Canadian Forces Base at Rockcliffe, Canadian Forces Communications System, Canadian Forces Base at Uplands, as of December 1, 1966, and as of December 1, 1967?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ICEBREAKING SERVICE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is it the policy of the Department of Transport to carry out icebreaking between Quebec City and Newfoundland for the purpose of flood control in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?
2.	If not, for what purpose is such icebreaking carried on?
3.	What has been the mileage for each year since 1962, including the projected program for 1967, covered by icebreakers in the waters east of Quebec City?
4.	What has been the annual cost of such icebreaking operations since 1962, by year, including the projected program for 1967?
5.	What studies have been carried out with regard to flood control for St. Lawrence River communities, and what were the recommendations?
6.	Have studies been carried out by the Department with regard to the effect that flood control or other icebreaking measures on the St. Lawrence River will have (a) west of Quebec City
(b)	east of Quebec City?
7.	If the answer to part 6 is yes, what were the results and what, if any, the recommendations?
8.	Has the Department considered whether such icebreaking operations have had an adverse effect on the port business of Halifax, Saint John and other ports in Atlantic Canada and, if so, what steps has it proposed to overcome such effects?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No.
2.	Between Newfoundland and Quebec, Department of Transport icebreakers are employed in support of shipping when ice conditions in shipping routes and in approach channels to harbours make it necessary.
3.	1962, 56,802 nautical miles; 1963, 56,812 nautical miles; 1964, 73,786 nautical miles; 1965, 86,464 nautical miles; 1966, 56,809 nautical miles; 1967, 80,850 nautical miles.
Questions
Estimated mileage for 1967-68 season,
75,000.
4.	1962, $1,394,000; 1963, $1,384,000; 1964, $1,608,000; 1965, $1,545,000; 1966, $2,157,000; 1967, $1,707,000.
Estimated cost for 1967-68 season, $1,750,-
000.
5.	Ice control for flood prevention in the St. Lawrence river at Montreal and downstream is under continuing study by the department.
In recent years the problem has become somewhat more complex because of man made changes such as development of the world's fair site, and the presence of commercial shipping in the channel opened by icebreakers for flood control. In recognition of this the department last year initiated an intensive investigation of ice problems, including an expanded program of systematic data collection and observance of ice conditions. As a result of preliminary studies, recommendations were made regarding the use of floating ice booms as an ice control measure and an experimental installation has now been completed in Lake St. Peter. The booms are designed to facilitate icebreaking operations by helping to prevent the ice cover breaking up and drifting into the open channel, due to wind action and ship generated waves. As an additional ice control measure, dredged material is being used to construct several artificial islands in the general area of the ice booms. The performance of the booms and the islands will be carefully observed during the winter months.
The operation of the Laprairie Basin ice control structure is being studied in conjunction with other control measures to obtain the most efficient control of the ice in that area.
The phenomena of ice formation and movement are also being studied on the department's scale model of the St. Lawrence river at Lasalle. These studies are preliminary in nature but it is hoped they will eventually provide a useful link in advancing the knowledge of ice formation and methods of control in the river downstream of Montreal.
6.	No.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	The icebreaking operations have facilitated winter navigation to ports of the Atlantic region and the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to ports on the St. Lawrence river as well as providing flood control.

January 22, 1968
Questions


CYPRUS-COST OF MAINTAINING CANADIAN TROOPS
Mr. Thomas (Middlesex: West):
1.	What is the average cost per day of maintaining Canadian troops on the island of Cyprus?
2.	How many days were Canadian troops stationed on Cyprus prior to December 1, 1967?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. From 27 March 1964 to 31 December 1967, a period of 1,375 days, the total out of pocket expenses absorbed by Canada over and above the costs which would normally be required to maintain these forces in Canada, is estimated at $11,559,000. This includes the initial positioning of the troops in Cyprus and subsequent rotation costs. Costs have varied, as the number of troops have been reduced and Canada has asked the United Nations to assume more of the out of pocket costs associated with maintaining the Canadian contingent in Cyprus. Although one could divide the out of pocket estimated costs by the number of days in Cyprus to arrive at an average cost per day, it would not provide a true picture.


BILINGUAL BONUS TO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many public service employees receive the 7 per cent bonus paid to bilingual employees, and how many in each department?
2.	Under what conditions is the bonus granted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. The attached list indicates the number of employees under the Public Service Employment Act, in each department, who receive the 7 per cent bonus. (There are other public service employees who receive this bonus, but they do not come under the jurisdiction of this act.)
2.	The bonus is granted to employees in respect of positions in the secretarial, stenographic and typing group in which adequate performance of duties and/or effective service to the public requires the use of both official languages, who are actually using a second official language at least 10 per cent of their time in the performance of their duties, and who are qualified by the Public Service Commission as meeting an appropriate standard of competence in the two official languages. The responsibility for certifying that the required conditions have been met rests with the deputy head.

Number receiving 7 per cent
Department	bonus
Agriculture	49
Auditor General's Office	1
Board of Broadcast Governors	5
Canada Emergency Measures
Organization	3
Canadian Maritime Commission	-
Canadian Penitentiary Service	4
Canadian Transport Commission	2
Air Transport Board	4
Board of Transport Commissioners	6
Chief Electoral Officer	3
Comptroller of the Treasury	27
Defence Production	46
Dominion Bureau of Statistics	22
Dominion Coal Board	-
Energy, Mines and Resources	6
External Affairs	90
External Aid Office	23
Finance	6
Fisheries	10
Forestry and Rural Development	21
Government House	3
Indian Affairs and Northern
Development	2
Industry	24
Insurance	1
Justice	45
Labour	19
Manpower and Immigration	215
National Defence	149
National Energy Board	3
National Gallery of Canada	3
National Health and Welfare	62
National Parole Board	-
National Revenue-
Customs and Excise	77
National Revenue-Taxation	129
Post Office	57
Privy Council Office	16
Public Archives	-
Public Printing and Stationery
(Queen's Printer)	13
Public Service Commission	47
Public Works	44
Registrar General	25
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(Headquarters)	43
Secretary of State	99
Tariff Board	3
January 22, 1968



Number
receiving
Department	7 per cent bonus
Tax Appeal Board	4
Trade and Commerce	13
Transport	66
Unemployment Insurance Commission 162	
Veterans Affairs	128
Total:	1,780
2.
Newfoundland (Oct. 31/67)
Middle Brook Falls 12 other rural parks Prince Edward Island Throughout the province Nova Scotia Various counties New Brunswick
Various locations throughout the province Quebec
Infrastructure in Laurentide park 5 other various locations Ontario
Muskoka, Prescott, Leeds, Bruce and Hali-burton counties
Manitoba
Spruce Woods provincial park Recreational infrastructure in public recreational areas
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan recreation and tourist program
Alberta
Forest recreation area development program
3.	No.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA FOR GRAIN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Did the federal government contribute financially to the University of Manitoba for the development of the new grain Triticale?
2.	Has the federal government any responsibility In the distribution of the new grain called Triticale and, if so, for what reason were the Alberta seed growers not given an opportunity to test the new grain in that province?
3.	Is the federal government contributing anything toward the development of a hybrid wheat and, if not, for what reason?
Questions


PAYMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR ENLARGEMENT OF PARKS
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Is money or other forms of assistance being made available by the Department of Forestry and Rural Development to enlarge or establish provincial parks in any of the provinces of Canada?
2.	If so, which ones and how much money has or will be expended?
3.	Are other parks or areas being considered and, if so, which ones?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Yes.
Commitment	Expenditure
$ 13,000 219,000	$ 12,089 147,553
139,730	42,143
291,900	151,380
204,800	72,624
100,008 41,475	100,008 19,767
1,724,000	-
750,000	31,604
244,925	119,425
316,425	305,050
255,600	12,850
4.	Is the federal government doing any experimenting for the development of plastic coating for winter wheat which would prevent winter kill?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and Agriculture as follows: 1. Yes, through assisted research grants.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.

January 22, 1968
Questions


YUKON-STORAGE DAM SITES
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What storage dam sites in the Yukon, if any, have been examined during each of the years 1960 to 1967 inclusive?
2.	In each case, has a report on such site been submitted to the government and, if so, what is the nature of the contents and recommendations, if any, of each such report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. Upper and Lower Porcupine Canyon on Porcupine river,
1962	and 1964; Bell Site on Porcupine river,
1963	and 1964; Summit Lake on Porcupine and Rat rivers, 1962 and 1963; Selwyn on Yukon river, 1960; Fort Selkirk Draw on Yukon river, 1960; Upper Ogilvie on Yukon river, 1961; Lower Ogilvie on Yukon river, 1961; Gere on Pelly river, 1961; Hoole on Pelly river, 1965; Detour on Pelly river, 1966; Granite Canyon on Pelly river, 1966; Aberdeen Falls on Peel river, 1962 and 1964; Wind River on Peel river, 1962 and 1964; Bonnet Flume on Peel river, 1962 and 1964; False Canyon on Frances river, 1961 and 1962; Lower Canyon on Frances river, 1962; Upper Canyon on Frances river, 1965; Upper and Lower Liard Canyon on Liard river, 1961 and 1962; Lower Canyon on White river, 1961; Kluane Canyon on Kluane river, 1962; Ross Canyon on Ross river, 1962; Prevost Canyon on Ross river, 1967; Fraser Falls on Stewart river, 1965; Five Mile Rapids on Stewart river, 1965; Kathleen Lake on Kathleen river, 1961; Otter Falls on Aishihik river, 1967.
2.	No. These reports were prepared for departmental use only.
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
1.	and 2. The only relevant information which is in the possession of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerns the study of the Yukon's hydroelectric requirements on a long term basis as dictated by the area's existing and potential nonrenewable resources developments. This study is being carried out by the firm of T. Ingle-dow and Associates Limited and, although a preliminary copy of the Ingledow report has been received, the full report will not be available for some time.


HIGHWAY IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When did construction commence on the gulf shore highway in the Prince Edward Island national park?
2.	When did construction cease?

3.	What is the total length of this highway?
4.	What was the total cost of the highway so far
completed?
5.	Is it intended to construct the portion of the highway across Rustico harbour?
6.	Has the National Research Council completed its study of the feasibility of constructing this portion of the highway?
7.	How long has the project been under study?
8.	What government departments have been involved?
9.	What is the distance by existing highways between portions to gulf shore highway on either side of Rustico harbour?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Defence Production as follows: 1. Work commenced on this highway on April 25, 1956.
2.	Work ceased November 6, 1965.
3.	The highway is 20.0 miles in length.
4.	Construction costs were $2,955,743.38. In addition, engineering fees of approximately 5 per cent were paid to the Department of Public Works.
5.	Due to the high cost, it does not appear to be practical to construct the bridge at this time.
6.	The division of mechanical engineering carried out engineering studies during 1962 and 1963 and submitted laboratory memoranda to the Department of Public Works containing tentative proposals of various schemes of constructing a highway across the entrance of Rustico Harbour.
7.	Answered by 6.
8.	The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Public Works and the National Research Council.
9.	The distance from Brackley beach to Rollings Pond, around Rustico Harbour, is 12 miles.


FOOD OUTLOOK-DISTRIBUTION BY DEPARTMENT
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many Food Outlook bulletins are circulated each month by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, economics division?
2.	What is the approximate cost, including postage, of this circular?
3.	Are these bulletins mailed to private individuals?
4.	To what groups or organizations are they mailed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	1,140.
2.	$22 per issue.
3.	Yes.
January 22, 1968

4.	The publication Food Outlook is mailed to hospitals, colleges, schools, clubs, orphanages, correctional institutions, dieticians, food buyers and others upon request.


OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS INCREASE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 816

Mr. Howe (Wellington-
Huron):
1.	Is there to be an increase in old age security payments in the near future?
2.	If there is such an increase, how much is it and why are these payments being increased?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, in January 1968. This information was made known to the house on October 18 when the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled a press announcement concerning pension increases.
2.	The Old Age Security Act provides for an increase in the basic amount of the pension related to increases in the Pension Index. As a result of the Pension Index increasing by two per cent for 1968, Old Age Security pensions will increase from $75 to $76.50 in January. In addition, the maximum supplement payable under the Guaranteed Income Supplement portion of the Old Age Security Act will rise from $30 to $30.60 a month. For those receiving the maximum supplement their combined benefit will be $107.10.
Questions


EXPENDITURES BY COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Godin: 1.	What were the total expenditures incurred by the royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism?
2.	What were the total expenditures incurred by each of the members of the commission since their appointment?
3.	How much will the work of the commission cost the federal treasury?
4.	How many copies of the preliminary report of the commission were printed (a) what was the total cost (b) how many copies were printed in French (c) how many copies were printed in English?
5.	How many copies of the first report of the commission were printed (a) what was the total cost (b) how many copies were printed in French
(c)	how many copies were printed in English?
6.	How is the distribution being made of the first report of the commission?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: January 22, 1968
Questions
3.	It is estimated the work of the Collision will cost the Federal Treasury up to March 31, 1968, $6,957,382.31. This figure is arrived at as follows:
Expenditures up to November
30, 1967	$ 6,601,531.06
Balance of estimates for 1967-68	355,851.35

4.	35,343 Copies (including 4,513 bilingual
copies): (a) $33,829.13;	(b)	10,398 French
copies; (c) 20,432 English copies.
5.	17,131: (a) $36,402.47; (b) 5,700 French copies; (c) 11,431 English copies.
6.	Distribution made by the B and B Commission and sales copy through Q.P.'s Mail Order Services, Q.P. Bookshops and Agencies.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-FATALITIES WHILE IN TRAINING
Mr. Herridge: What are the statistics relating to the number ot men in the Canadian Armed Forces who were killed while in training during the year 1966?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer is 13.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY-PERSONNEL STRENGTH
Mr. Lambert: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF JET TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has consideration been given to the acquisition by the Department of National Defence of one or more C-5A jet transport aircraft and, if so, what is the nature of the proposal as to the numbers, cost per copy, schedule of delivery and purpose?
2.	Has a decision been reached and, if so, what is the nature thereof?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. The production of the C-5A jet transport for the United States forces is being watched with interest. However, no decision has been made regarding the acquisition of such aircraft by the Department of National Defence.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF DYNAVERT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Do the Canadian Forces propose to acquire a number of CL-84 Dynavert aircraft and, if so, how many, at what cost per copy, and what is the schedule of delivery?
2.	What role is to be assigned to such an aircraft?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. and 2. Three prototype aircraft are being procured as a joint development program supported by the Department of Industry and the Department of National Defence. The aircraft will be used to conduct technical evaluation and operational trials to determine the potential and military applications of the vertical take off and landing concept in support of land forces, in the maritime environment and for search and rescue. Delivery is expected to commence a year from date of contract. The estimated program cost is $13,-
100,000	including development, manufacture, evaluation and support of the three test aircraft.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-TRIAL OF NEW SALUTE
Mr. MacEwan: Are Canada's Armed Forces now using a new salute on a trial basis and, if so (a) what ranks are using this salute (b) how is the salute physically effected (c) will all members of Canada's Armed Forces be using this salute?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, (a) selected members of the Canadian forces of all ranks are now using the
January 22, 1968

proposed new salute; (b) the proposed salute is effected as follows:
(1) To salute to the front, bend the right elbow and bring the right hand by the shortest route to the position at the headdress. (2) During the movement, the back of the hand is uppermost with the fingers together and straight. Continue the upward movement with the palm of the hand down. In the position of the salute, the fingers are extended, together, with the tip of the forefinger approximately in line with the right eyebrow, the upper arm (from shoulder to elbow) horizontal. The forearm, wrist and fingers are straight from the elbow to the point where the forefinger touches the cap. (3) To return to the position of attention, cut the hand to the side by the shortest route. The hand is closed after the forearm is lowered below shoulder level. The salute is held for a regulation pause before returning to the position of attention.
(c)	If considered acceptable and when authorized, all members of the Canadian forces will use a common salute.


DISTRIBUTION OF CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Did all the members of the legislatures of all the provinces receive centennial medals?
2.	Were centennial medals awarded to all members of civic governments (city councils, municipal councils, school boards, park commissions, etc.) ?
3.	If the answer to Part 2 is no, what criteria were used to determined which persons in civic government were awarded centennial medals?
4.	Who, in each province, was given the responsibility for recommending the names of persons, elected or appointed, in civic government to receive centennial medals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	By the terms of reference of the centennial medal, persons nominated for the medal must have given specially valuable service to Canada. Further criteria employed by public and private bodies submitting nominations are at the discretion of such bodies.
4.	The government decorations committee formally requested the lieutenant-governor in each province to invite nominations through appropriate channels of provincial and civic governments. No further information is available about the recommending procedures followed.
Questions


BISSETT, MAN.-R.C.M.P. DETACHMENT
Mr. Schreyer: Has the Government of Canada received any representations in 1967 from the Government of Manitoba requesting the re-establishment of an R.C.M.P. Detachment at Bissett?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Answer in so far as it relates to the Department of the Solicitor General, is as follows: no.


&quot;WAITING FOR CAROLINE&quot;-EXPENDITURES ON C.B.C. PRODUCTION
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron): What was the total expenditure by the CBC for "Waiting for Caroline", a production on the national network, which was shown on Wednesday, November 29?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: Final payments have not yet been made. The indicated total cost to C.B.C. is $255,628.18.


LONDON, ENGLAND-PRESENCE OF CANADIAN TREASURY OFFICERS
Mr. Godin: Are there any Canadian Government Treasury Officers in London, England and, if so (a) what are their names (b) what are their duties (c) what are their annual salaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes; (a) J. S. Sutherland; C. A. Zimmerling; and a staff of 23 locally engaged clerical and stenographic employees; (b) To act on behalf of the Comptroller of the Treasury to control all payments out of the consolidated revenue fund on behalf of Canadian government departments in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act; (c) J. S. Sutherland, $15,931 per annum. C. A. Zimmerling, $7,433 per annum.


TRAVEL EXPENSES TO DOCTORS FROM FRENCH SPEAKING COUNTRIES
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Did the federal government pay travel and residence expenses for certain delegations of doctors from some French-speaking countries in Africa and Asia at the time of the international congress of French-speaking doctors held in Montreal at the end of September, 1967?
2.	If so (a) what countries were involved (b) what expenditures were incurred for each country?
Questions

January 22, 1968


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Insofar as the Department of External Affairs is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.
(a)	(b)
Ivory Coast	$2,520.94
Upper Volta	1,128.79
Togo	1,203.58
Dahomey	2,263.58
Niger	75.00
Malagasy	3,230.56
Congo (Brazzaville)	1,245.29
Tchad	1,208.79
Gabon	1,245.29
Rwanda	1,420.29
Burundi	1,419.89
Congo (Kinshasa)	1,245.28
Senegal	2,011.58
Cameroun	3,737.37
Tunisia	2,634.87
Laos	3,929.66
Vietnam	3,089.56
Morocco	2,438.00
Central African Republic	1,245.38


CANADIAN TUNA COMPANY LIMITED-FEDERAL SUBSIDY ON SHIPS
Mr. MacRae: 1.	How many ships have been built for the Canadian Tuna Company Limited to which a federal government subsidy was paid?
2.	Where were these ships built?
3.	Where will they be used?
4.	What were the total construction costs?
5.	What was the total amount of the subsidy?
6.	Do Maritime Provinces shipyards have a permanent percentage of federal shipbuilding contracts?
7.	If so, what is the percentage allocated to Maritime Provinces shipyards?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Defence Production, and Transport as follows: 1. There is no record of any federal government subsidy paid or to be paid in respect of fishing vessels built to the order of Canadian Tuna Company Limited.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	No.
7.	Not applicable.


REMOVAL OF PERSONNEL FROM NATIONAL DEFENCE TO TRANSPORT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of December 1, 1967, how many persons in the Department of National Defence moved to the Department of Transport, and on what dates were they moved?
2.	Of these, how many were employed in the Information and/or Public Relations Services of the Department of National Defence?
3.	Of these, how many were military personnel?
4.	Of those who moved, how many years of service with the Department of National Defence did each have?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. As of 1 December, 1967, ten persons in the Department of National Defence moved to the Department of Transport as follows: 6, 19 September, 1967; 3, 20 September, 1967; 1, 1 December, 1967.
2.	One.
3.	Two.
4.	Mr. W. M. Lee, 24 years 2 months; Corporal J. Y. Gleason, 20 years 4 months; Acting Wing Commander R. Turner, 19 years; Mrs. J. T. Lafleche, 19 years 9f months; Mrs. M. B. E. Drolet, 14 years 4 months; Miss M. M. M. Bulger, 4 years 5 months; Mr. R. G. Edwards, 2 years 11 months; Mr. R. G. Gairns, 1 year \ month; Mr. R. J. McDowall, 2 months; Mr. R. P. Stone, 1 month.


COURSES UNDER MANPOWER AND TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL LEGISLATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamenfary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration's adult occupational training program has ben in operation only since April 1, 1967. Enrolments are not separated by provinces because some people are referred to training across provincial boundaries. By region, enrolments from April 1 to November 30, 1967, were as follows:
January 22, 1968

Questions
Total in training
In	New Enrolments	during
training 

 period
on Apr. 1-	Apr. 1-
Region	Apr. 1/67 June 30 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Total Nov. 30/67
Atlantic region	10,251	1,097	514	173	3,523	2,226	1,282	8,815	19,069Quebec region	
26,862	196	525	189	1,626	4,526	2,087	9,149	36,011Ontario region	
25,390	8,991	562	1,764	5,320	5,272	5,975	27,884	53,274Prairie region	
10,225	3,413	374	272	3,311	2,576	1,776	11,722	21,947Pacific region	
3,799	1,411	185	83	946	393	571	3,589	7,388Canada Total	
76,530	15,108	2,160	2,481	14,726	14,993	11,691	61,159	137,689
2. Under the technical and vocational training agreements enrolments in the major programs, including apprenticeship, for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 in each province, were as follows. These provincially operated courses included a considerable number of youths who are now training in provincial programs rather than under the O.T.A. program.
Province	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67Nfld.	1,361	1,314	4,246P.E.I.	194	374	656N.S.	2,348	2,874	6,123N.B.	2,267	938	4,473Que.	11,872	12,355	33,410Ont.	34,478	42,102	70,800Man.	3,702	4,210	8,003Sask.	2,712	3,131	6,205Alta.	6,795	7,873	10,539B.C.	5,452	4,853	6,839Ontario	ManitobaApril-June	776	July	110	August	131	149September	202	-October	383	November	455	-Total	2,057	149
Province


Y.T. N.W.T.
[Stage Direction]
Total
130
71,334
87
80,146
146
151,457

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many new Canadians in each province took courses in Special English under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	How many new Canadians in each province took courses in Special English under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


John Carr Munro: 1. Under the occupational training for adults program, which began to operate on April 1, 1967, the enrolments in language training courses, by province, were as follows:
	British	
Alberta	Columbia	Total-	93	869-	-	110-	-	280-	-	20265	-	44815	7	47780	100	2,386
In the Atlantic region and Quebec language training is included in basic education upgrading courses and not separated from mathematics, science, etc. Similarly, there were no separate (special) language classes under
O.T.A. in Saskatchewan.
2.	Prior to March 31, 1967, these courses were provided by the provinces under the shared cost technical and vocational training agreements. In statistical' reports Special English courses were not separated from general basic education upgrading.


DONATIONS TO ENGLAND
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Have donations been made to England in the form of food, merchandise, armaments, or any other form since 1938?
2.	If so (a) in which year was each of these donations made (b) what was the value of each of these donations?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. Yes.

January 22, 1968
Questions
2. (a) and (b) Details by individual years are not available. As far as can be determined, Canada made no donations in kind to Britain from 1939-42, from 1946-49 and from 1964-67 {however in 1942 a contribution of 1 billion was made for the purchase by Britain of Canadian war supplies for its own and other Allied use); from 1943-45, goods worth approximately $720 million were made available to Britain each year as part of Canada's Mutual Aid program, under which contracts were signed with allied nations to provide foodstuffs, war materials and other supplies without payment; and between 1950 and 1963, military equipment worth $170,465,000 was donated to Britain under the Mutual Aid program by which NATO allies were provided, at their request, with material surplus to Canadian requirements.


DISCONTINUATION OF RURAL MAIL DELIVERIES ON SATURDAYS
Mr. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)): 1.	Is It the intention of the Post Office Department to discontinue urban mail deliveries on Saturdays?
2.	Will the Post Office Department continue the delivery of rural mail on Saturdays?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Preliminary studies concerning the curtailment of postal service on weekends have been initiated. These studies are in line with recommendations 58 and 59 of the royal commission on working conditions in the Post Office Department.
Studies to date have dealt with the effect these recommendations would have on staff needs. Studies are under way to assess the full impact of the recommendations on such problems as storage space, delays to mail and other related considerations. There is also the question of public reaction to be resolved.
Only after a detailed analysis has been made of all factors concerned will it be possible to make concrete proposals as to the course of action, if any, that will be taken with regard to the curtailment of urban mail deliveries on Saturdays.
2. Any possible effect that a curtailment in postal services upon the weekends might have on rural mail delivery will be thoroughly examined.


EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS BY CANADIAN MINES
Mr. Orlikow: Are any Canadian mining firms or mining associations now recruiting immigrant miners, and mine

labourers, overseas, through the facilities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, or are they hiring those immigrants on their own and then having immigration officials approve their entry into Canada?
2.	What are the names and addresses of each mining firm and mining association that are taking part in this overseas recruitment program?
3.	(a) What are the European countries visited by representatives of each mining firm and mining association (b) are the Branches of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in each one of those countries assisting or participating in this recruitment?
4.	(a) Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration any information as to the total number of immigrant miners and mine labourers each firm will be bringing into Canada during the next six months (b) how many miners and mine labourers have been brought into Canada to date this year by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for employment in the mines as miners and mine labourers?
5.	What is the exact location of each mine in Canada where those immigrant miners and mine labourers are to be employed?
6.	(a) Have any or all those mines listed their labour requirements with the various Canada Manpower Centres (b) what are the possibilities now of recruiting Canadian workers for employment in the mines as miners and mine labourers instead of bringing into Canada immigrants for this work?
7.	(a) Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration discuss with the mining association or with the individual mine officials the possibility of training Canadian workers for this work (b) if so, what was the result (c) can mine workers or prospective mine workers be given training under present training programs?
8.	(a) Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration discuss with the unions which have organized the workers in Canadian mines and which have agreements with the mining companies, the attitude of the unions in respect to bringing in immigrant miners and mine labourers to work in Canadian mines (b) if so, what was the attitude of the unions concerned?
9.	(a) Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration discuss with the unions which have organized the workers in Canadian mines the attitude of the unions to the training of Canadian workers to work in Canadian mines (b) if so, what was the attitude of the unions concerned?
10.	(a) Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration discuss with the mining firms or mining associations the possibility of meeting part or all of their recruitment problems through the hiring and/or training of Canadian Indians and Eskimos (b) if so, what was the attitude of the companies to such a proposal?


John Carr Munro: 1.	Yes. Three mining firms have been recruiting miners and mine labourers abroad and several other firms are completing arrangements to send representatives overseas for recruitment through the facilities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
January 22, 1968

2.	The three mining companies who have been recruiting overseas are: Little Long Lac Gold Mines Ltd., 112 King Street W., Toronto, Ont.; International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd., Sudbury, Ontario; Patrick Harrison and Company, Montreal, Quebec.
3.	(a) Germany-(Little Long Lac Gold Mines Limited) (Patrick Harrison and Company) United Kingdom-(International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd.) (b) Yes.
4.	(a) The three companies have indicated that they hope to recruit: Little Long Lac, 100 miners; International Nickel, 275 miner trainees; Patrick Harrison and Company, 50 miners, (b) 250 were admitted to Canada up to September 30, 1967.
5.	It is expected that the immigrant miners and mine labourers who will be recruited as a result of current activity will be employed at the following locations: Little Long Lac group of mines: Macassa Gold Mines Limited, Kirkland Lake, Ontario. Wilroy Mines Limited, Manitouwadge, Ontario. Willecho Mines Limited, Manitouwadge, Ontario. Ren-abie Mines Limited, Renabie, Ontario. Mac-Leod-Cockshut Gold Mines Limited, Gerald-ton, Ontario. Wasamac Mines Limited, Rouyn, Quebec. East Malartic Mines Limited, Norrie, Quebec. Malartic Gold Fields (Quebec) Limited, Fourniere and Dubuisson Townships, Quebec. Marband Gold Mines Limited, Fourniere and Dubuisson Townships, Quebec. Norbeau Mines Limited, Chibougamau, Quebec. International Nickel Co. of Canada Limited, Sudbury, Ontario. Patrick Harrison and Company, contract mining anywhere in Canada.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) Canadian workers are continually being recruited for employment in the mines as miners and mine labourers. The supply has been insufficient to meet the need.
7.	(a) Yes. (b) In 1966 and 1967 the federal government contributed 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the instructional costs for 22 training projects operated by mining companies. These projects involved the training or upgrading of about 5,300 mine workers. In addition there has recently been a sizable movement of mine workers from other parts of Canada under the department's manpower mobility program, (c) Yes.
8.	The unions have not expressed views to the department. If they did so, they would receive full consideration.
9.	The unions have not indicated any views. If they did so, they would be received with great interest.
Questions
10.	(a) Yes. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has discussed with mining firms and the mining association the recruiting of miners and mine trainees in all surplus labour areas of Canada, and has actively promoted the recruiting of Canadian Indians and Eskimos, (b) The attitude of the companies has been to accept suitable candidates obtained through such programs.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PURCHASE OF SHARES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Will the Cape Breton Development Corporation purchase the shares or the assets of the nationalized companies?
2.	Will the Corporation indemnify the former owners with money or with interest-bearing bonds?
3.	Has the Corporation completed the inventory of the assets to be expropriated and will this inventory be submitted to the registry office?
4.	What will be the method of assessment of the amounts of the assets in the balance sheet, the direct evaluation of the assets, the stock exchange capitalization, etc.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The corporation has made no decision concerning the method of acquisition of lands and personal property of the companies.
2.	No decision has been made.
3.	The preparation of an inventory of assets is continuing actively, but is not completed. The provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act will govern future action in this regard.
4.	No decision has been made.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Alberi):
1.	What is the estimate of the equalization payments to the provinces for the current year ending March, 1968?
2.	Have any estimates been made for the year ending March 31, 1969 and, if so, what are the figures in each case by provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The equalization payments to the provinces under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, are estimated as follows: (in thousands of dollars) Newfoundland, $67,781; Prince Edward Island, $14,071; Nova Scotia, $77,133; New Brunswick, $66,317; Que-

January 22, 1968
Questions
bee, $249,560; Ontario, $

; Manitoba, $43,456; Saskatchewan, $26,438; Alberta, $

;
British Columbia, $

.
2. The estimate of equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, will be contained in the estimates of government expenditures for the 1968-69 fiscal year when those estimates are submitted to parliament for approval.


PERSONNEL OF COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Who are the members of the commission dealing with the status of women, and (a) when were they appointed (b) for how many days did they meet?
2.	What are the names of the members of the staff of this commission and what are their salaries?
3.	How much has been spent by the commission since its inception?
4.	When does the commission expect to submit its report?
5.	What contracts were awarded by the commission, what was their purpose, and when will they be completed?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the royal commission on the status of women in Canada as follows:
1.	Mrs. John Bird, Miss Elsie Gregory Mac-Gill, Mrs. Ottomar Lange, Miss Jeanne Lapointe, Mrs. Robert Ogilvie, Mr. Jacques Henripin. (a) February 16, 1967; (b) 15 days.
2.	Miss Monique Begin, $22,000 per annum; Dr. H. David Kirk, $22,000 per annum; Miss Monique Coupal, $17,500 per annum; Miss R. Cass-Beggs, $13,500 per annum; Mrs. Trudy Kassner, $35 per diem; Mrs. Martha Hynna, $6,600 per annum; Mrs. Isabelle C. Desjardins, $6,500 per annum; Mrs. Nancy Ross, $6,400 per annum; Miss Maureen J. Spencer, $5,640 per annum.
3.	$218,946.16.
4.	A report will be submitted with all reasonable despatch, as soon as possible after completion of the commission's research program, public hearings, etc., as is customary with commissions of inquiry.
5.	Contracts:
Awarded to Me Berengere Gaudet Notary,
Montreal, Quebec. Canadian Centre for Community Studies, 151 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
Professor Ronald D. Lambert,
B.A., M.A., Ph.D., University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Mrs. Patricia Cock-burn, B. Com, Consultant in Economics,
Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Association of University Teachers,
77 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
Miss Marianne Bossen, Professor of Economics,
United College, Winnipeg, Man.

Purpose
Study entitled "Family Affairs"
Completion date October 1, 1967
Research project for the purpose of eval- August 31, 1967 uating the relevance and suitability of existing research instruments and methods for the subsequent conduct by the commission of a sociological survey on roles and functions of women in Canada at various ages of their lives
Study entitled, "The Formation of Sex- January 31, 1969 role Conceptions in Young People"
Study entitled, "Women University Gra- September 1, 1967 duates in Continuing Education and Employment 1966"
Special report entitled, "Discrimination in February 15, 1968 Promotion for Women University Teachers"
Study entitled, "The Status of Female February 29, 1968 Employees in Department Stores"
January 22, 1968



SAINTE-ANNE-DE-SOREL, QUE.; BREAKWATER


Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the estimated quantity of stone, in tons, required to build the breakwater now being constructed at Sainte-Anne-de-Sorel?
2.	What was the amount of the contract awarded?
3.	To what company was it awarded and where is its head office?
4.	What is the name of the chairman of the club which will administer this marina?


George James McIlraith: 1. 37,000 tons.
2.	The contract was awarded on a unit
price basis, as follows:	excavation, $0.50
per cubic yard; earthflll, $0.31 per cubic yard; stone, $1.50 per ton; plain concrete, $13.50 per cubic yard; reinforced concrete, $28.50 per cubic yard; galvanized steel pipe-arch, $20.00 per lineal foot.
3.	Les Entreprises J. R. Denoncourt Enrg., Nicolet, Que.
4. The marina will be administered by L'Auberge de la Rive Ltee, the president of which is the Hon. Lucien Cardin.


APPLICATIONS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Mr. Brand: 1.	Under what circumstances and for what points in time are applications for major equipment for medical research considered for approval by (a) health resources fund (b) Medical Research Council?
2.	Is there any limit on the number of applications for major equipment for medical research for the same laboratory or the same investigator eligible for approval under the health resources fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Contributions from the health resources fund are paid to provinces in an amount up to 50 per cent of the reasonable costs of all basic equipment necessary for the operation of a newly acquired, constructed or renovated health training facility. Applications are received from provinces at any time and are generally approved within a few days, provided the projects are included in provincial five year programs approved by the health resources advisory committee in accordance with the act; (b) Applications are received by the Medical Research Council at any time from individual investigators for the support of all research equipment not eligible for support by the health resources fund.
Questions
2. The only limits to support by the health resources fund of the costs of basic research equipment required by a new health training facility are: (a) Equipment is ineligible if it is delivered before the date on which the contract is signed for the construction, renovation or acquisition of the facility; (b) Equipment is ineligible if it is not installed and ready for use within 18 months of completion of the facility.


&quot;HATCH'S MILL&quot;-PAYMENT BY SPONSORS
Mr. MacEwan: What are the names of the sponsors, referred to on page 5663 of Hansard, December 20, 1967, and what do the two sponsors pay for each half-hour of the C.B.C. production "Hatch's Mill"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: The two alternating sponsors of "Hatch's Mill" referred to on page 5663 of Hansard were General Foods and Chrysler. In addition, a third sponsor, Procter and Gamble, was involved on a weekly basis. It has not been customary to require the corporation to disclose payments from sponsors as this would affect the position of the C.B.C. in the competitive business in which it is engaged.


MAIL COLLECTION IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the Post Office Department provide for collection of mail inside all high-rise apartment buildings?
2.	What is the policy with regard to mail collections in or from such buildings?
3.	Has the Department turned down a request for in-site collection of mail from tenants of buildings of 15 storeys or more in height?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Posimasier General: 1. No.
2.	The department places street mail receptacles as conveniently as possible outside of large apartment buildings where they will be accessible to the apartment dwellers as well as to other patrons in the same vicinity.
3.	Yes. Because of the difficulties of collection the department does not normally place receptacles inside apartment buildings. However, apartment buildings of this size would usually be served by receptacles placed in the immediate area.

January 22, 1968
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


QUEBEC-JURISDICTION OF ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr, Caouetie: 1.	Does the government intend to give the Atlantic development board jurisdiction over the eastern Quebec area?
2.	Has the government received representations from the province of Quebec with regard to Quebec's Atlantic region?
3.	What subsidies have been granted to the provinces under this program?
4.	Has the government requested, or does it intend to request an opinion from the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of expenditures of a regional nature?
Return tabled.


BRIDGES-FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the federal government or any department or agency thereof made financial contributions towards the building of bridges within Canada or on the Canadian border in the past 10 years?
2.	If so, in what amounts and where?
3.	On what authority are such contributions made, and what, if any, is the formula to share the costs with other levels of government or non-federal bodies?
Return tabled.


HOUSING-RESEARCH TO REDUCE COSTS
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Has the government undertaken research programs to reduce housing costs through the use of
(a)	new designs (b) new materials (c) new production techniques?
2.	If so (a) what are the programs (b) what budget has been allotted?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-OFFICE SPACE IN CAMPEAU TOWERS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What government departments have secured office space in the Campeau Towers?
2.	What is the amount of space secured by each?
3.	What is the cost of this space per square foot?
4.	What is the cost of new furniture, carpeting, drapes, etc., for these offices?
5.	What has been done with the furniture, carpets, drapes, etc., used in the offices which have been vacated as a result of these moves?
Return tabled.


POTATOES-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO GROWERS
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	From 1950 to 1967, what federal assistance has been provided to potato growers either in subsidy payments, preferential tariffs, or transportation assistance, in what amount and in what years?
2.	What has been the amount received by each province during that period and how many potato growers by province have been assisted?
3.	In 1966-67, how many applications for assistance were received?
4.	From 1950 to 1967, how many potatoes were marketed by each province and what amounts of revenue were received by potato growers, and during that time how many potato growers have there been per province per year?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AID-ASSISTANCE TO VIET NAM
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	How much money was spent on aid to Viet Nam in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	What form of aid was provided during those years?
3.	How many persons served in Viet Nam as part of the external aid program, in what capacity and for what length of time?
4.	During that period how much aid was requested, what amounts and by whom?
5.	Was any aid requested that was not made available and, if so, what kind?
6.	Was any aid refused?
7.	How much is it estimated will be spent on aid to Viet Nam in 1967, and (a) what form of aid
(b)	how many persons are or will be involved
(c)	in what capacity and who are they?
Return tabled.


APPLICATIONS UNDER EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, how many applications for assistance were received under the northern mineral exploration assistance program of the government?
2.	From whom, for what purpose and for what amount was each such application received?
3.	How many of such applications were approved, in what amount in each case and for which specific applicants?
4.	Since March 31, 1967, how many such applications were received, from whom, for what purpose and for what amount in each case?
5. Since March 31, 1967, how many of such applications were approved, for what amount in each case and for which specific applicants?
6.	Has there been any cut-back in the amount available for the program for the current fiscal year or for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, and, if so, what is the amount of the cut-back in each case?
January 22, 1968

7.	Is it the intention of the government to amend the regulations under which applications for assistance are made so as to broaden the qualifications of those eligible to apply for assistance under the program and/or have such amendments been made?
8.	If so, what is the nature of such intended amendments and/or amendments in fact?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDIES TO SHIPYARDS ON STEEL HULL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Tucker: 
FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With respect to the statement he made on motions, will the minister advise the house whether the week end directive of the United States treasury department to Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies to keep their funds in Canada was made at the specific request of the Canadian government and, if so, when was that request made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I discussed with the Secretary of the treasury of the United States, and my officials discussed with the officials of that department, the advisability of issuing a statement in view of the uncertainties that apparently existed in the Canadian market about the intent of the United States regulations. These discussions took place in the last few days while I was in Winnipeg. I cannot say exactly the hours at which I had these discussions with the secretary but they did occur within the last two or three days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise whether he has made any other requests of the United States government for assistance of any other sort, as he outlined in
Inquiries of the Ministry his statement, so that the Canadian authorities will get some form of assistance in maintaining the stability of the Canadian dollar in the international monetary market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to attempt to answer the question but I am not quite sure I understood it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be good enough to put it another way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has referred to certain types of recourse the Canadian government would have with regard to maintaining the stability of the Canadian dollar. Has the Canadian government or the minister made specific requests to the United States government in respect of any of these forms of assistance, or is this simply something that one sets up like on a balance sheet of potential assets?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think my statement was quite clear. In addition to the foreign exchange and gold reserves that we have held we have access to large supplementary sources of finances through the International Monetary Fund. These involve a matter of the terms of agreements of the fund.
In addition to that, we have a reciprocal arrangement between the Bank of Canada and the federal reserve system whereby we can draw $750 million. These matters have been arranged for many months; they are not of recent arrangement. I also mentioned of course that under arrangements we have with the United States,-and this is a rather unique position,-we have unrestricted access to the United States long term market.


Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned in his statement a moment ago that some United States dollars had been purchased by Canada. Can he give us any specific figure in this respect?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this would be advisable. In due course, when the figures come out at the end of the month, the exact position of the exchange fund can be revealed.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us whether in the course of his discussions with the secretary of the treasury in Washington he dealt with the proposed legislation which will put an embargo on imports into the United States and subsidize exports

January 22, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
from the United States, and which, if it goes Mr. Hees: Was this done immediately after into effect, will be tantamount to a devalua- the United States government announced its tion of the United States dollar?	program?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had some discussions with United States officials when they came to Ottawa for discussion of the balance of payments program. There have also been other discussions between officials of the Canadian government and the United States government. In reply to questions by the press I also indicated that if the United States were to put into effect a system similar to that of European countries, namely a surcharge on imports and a rebate on exports, we would take parallel action. I think this kind of action on the part of the United States is regrettable, and I must add that the same thing can be said about that kind of action by other countries. The United States is not taking the initiative in this matter; it is following a pattern established in Europe.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he can give the house the government's estimate of the volume of earnings of United States subsidiaries operating in Canada which has been repatriated to the United States since January 1 as a result of that government's program to correct its balance of payments problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is anyone in the world at the present time who would know that figure.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister whether on January 1 or immediately thereafter the Canadian government advised the United States that Canada has a yearly current account deficit of about $1 billion with respect to the United States and that therefore there is no justification for including this country in any United States program to correct its balance of payments program.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government had many long discussions, and had them over the years, with the United States on this subject. The United States recognizes that Canada does not contribute to the foreign exchange difficulties of the United States. That is why Canada has such a special place and is exempted from most of the restrictions applied by the United States to other countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the drain on Canadian reserves has been almost entirely due to the transfer of funds to the United States or whether a considerable proportion of this drain is a result of the transfer of funds to other countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is very difficult to answer this question with certainty. The information we have is that the funds were flowing from Canada to the United States and not abroad. We have no evidence that there was any particular drain, or any drain at all, arising from transfers outside the continent.


REPORT RESPECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, and in doing so may I express the pleasure of all hon. members at his obviously complete recovery from surgical ministrations. Could the President of the Privy Council tell the house when the report of the task force studying foreign investment in Canada will be available and whether it will be laid on the table of the house at this session?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his kindly remarks. I did not know my recovery was so obvious, but we will just have to wait and see. The report of the task force has been completed and I hope it will be presented to and discussed by the cabinet this week, after which I may have more to say.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance?
January 22. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	5785
Can he tell us if, following the decision taken by the Bank of Canada to increase its discount rate from 6 to 7 per cent, the government is contemplating steps to prevent the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the chartered banks from increasing their interest rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The long term reaction of the market to the increase in the bank rate has been very small so far.


ABOLITION OF INTEREST CEILING ON LOANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: Bring him back.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As the minister indicated in a speech to the annual convention of the National House Builders Association at noon today that he believed the interest ceiling on government guaranteed house building loans should be abolished, when will this move be implemented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that questions relating to statements made outside the house may only be asked of the Acting Prime Minister in the sense that the hon. member asking the question seeks to ascertain whether the statement which was made outside the house represents government policy.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the statement I have referred to, which was made by the President of the Treasury Board, represents government policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This matter will be considered, Mr. Speaker.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the acting Prime Minister. In view of the conflicting statements that have been made by ministers regarding medicare, and in view of the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that the medicare program is now law and would be carried out, I should like to ask the acting Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister whether he can assure the country that any provinces desirous of proceeding with medicare will be able to do so on or after July 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, parliament has passed an act with respect to medicare. It is now the law of the land. It is permissive legislation. Its implementation depends on action by the provinces. Some provincial governments have asked the federal government to hear their views. Notwithstanding the fact that the law of the land is clear, no government could ever refuse to hear the provinces. The law is clear, however.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary ques-tino, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said a few days ago that this matter was being reconsidered by the cabinet, may I ask whether that reconsideration has been given and whether the government is now in a position to give a definite assurance that there will be no delay in allowing the provinces to proceed with medicare under the present legislation. I should also like to ask whether the government is ready to hand down a decision on how soon it will be able to give the provinces a definite assurance that they may proceed on July 1 or later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It must be clear to my hon. friend that no government has the right, nor has any political party the right, to ignore what is the law of the land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the minister under the strain of his recent travels is somewhat weary and probably did not catch the import of my question.


Mr. Knowles:: He is not the white haired boy any more, either.


An hon. Member:: Does he or doesn't he?
Another hon. Member: Only his hairdresser knows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I will take no notice of these comments about the transformation in the Secretary of State for External Affairs and will confine myself to the question. In view of the Prime Ministers' statement that the cabinet was giving reconsideration to the matter, I should like to ask now whether the government has given reconsideration to it and whether it has reached a decision and, if not, how soon will it reach a decision?
5786	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have given an answer. I hope my hon. friend will conclude that that answer meets this question or any other similar question, and I do not think there is anything further that I need add. I know my hon. friend's purpose in asking this question. It is not to elicit information: He is seeking to embarrass the government, but without much hope.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I too was away from the nation's capital, but I have the impression that the Prime Minister had stated he was going to make a statement on the subject this week. Was I correct in that impression?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister did make a statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understood the Prime Minister was going to make a statement on this subject this week in the house. Is this a correct impression or is it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister made a statement at his press conference on Friday. I know of nothing further that can be added to what he said. The law of the land is clear. The house has passed the medicare legislation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, some of us had the impression that the Prime Minister had stated he was going to make a statement on this subject in the house this week. Is this or is this not a correct impression?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the acting Prime Minister. He said that the law of the land is clear. Will he say if the government will leave that law alone?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. How many provinces have indicated their intention to go ahead with the medicare program on July 1?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no formal procedure by which provinces officially notify the government at this stage of their intention to enter the medicare plan.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
National Health and Welfare indicate whether there has been any change. I believe he reported to the house some time ago that certain provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the hon. member put his question.


Edward Nasserden: My question is this: Have any provinces, which previously indicated that they would go ahead with medicare, now indicated that they are not going ahead with it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There has been no formal procedure at any stage by which provinces indicate their intention of coming in. My hon. friend realizes that from time to time heads of provincial governments have stated their intention of entering the medicare plan and later have stated an opposite intention.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask him whether medicare will come into effect on July 1, 1968.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This question has been answered several times by the Acting Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has any supplementary comment to add to the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, the
answer was lucid.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister related to the question on medicare that was raised earlier. Since the Acting Prime Minister has indicated that the government intends to go ahead with medicare on July 1, does this indicate a change in government policy regarding adherence to the four basic criteria that were laid down in the medicare bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this is a question of debate and not the type of question that can be asked at this time.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I am merely asking for information. I am asking whether there is any indication that there has been a change in government policy
January 22, 1968

in this regard. It is not a matter of debate at all unless the government wishes to make it so.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister relating to medicare. Have dominion-provincial relations deteriorated to the extent that the federal government now has no clear indication from the provinces of the extent to which medicare will be implemented in July next?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question, as asked, is highly argumentative.
tTranslation]


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Can he tell us whether he has received from the Quebec minister of agriculture, a request for a financial contribution to the development of an access road from La Sarre to James bay in northwestern Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question, in its present form, does not comply with the rules of the house and that it should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who is responsible to the house for ARDA.
Would the minister be prepared to consider the possibility of granting some assistance to build a road connecting the northwestern area of Quebec with James bay, a road which would permit the development of extraordinary resources in that region.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the provinces must submit those requests to the federal government.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister has already replied to the question of the hon. member. But there again it seems to me that the question is rather general; I fail to see how it may be put verbally at this point.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My question was not put today and is not general in nature. It refers specifically to a northwestern region of Quebec which has been neglected by both Ottawa and Quebec. I would like to know from the minister what steps are to be taken so as to obtain satisfactory results.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he can get a reply by putting his question on the order paper.


FERTILIZER-PURCHASES IN CONNECTION WITH DELIVERY SCHEME
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the importance of fertilizer in farmers' operations, would he discuss with the Canadian Wheat Board the advisability of including the purchase of fertilizers as well as seed grain under the special spring over-quota delivery scheme?


Robert Henry Winters: I will be very happy to do
that, Mr. Speaker.


TURKEYS-POSSIBILITY OF LIMITING IMPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture concerning the continued importation of United States turkeys into Canada. Since the imposition of value for duty on United States birds has had no effect on the adverse situation of Canadian growers, will the minister now consider introducing limitations on the volume of imports?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, no such action has been taken at this time but I shall be pleased to consider the hon. member's suggestion.

January 22, 19S8
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DISASTERS


SICILIAN EARTHQUAKES-ASSISTANCE BY CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he advise the house whether Canada has made any contribution to assist the survivors of the Sicilian earthquakes and, if so, what is the nature and extent of that assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for Spadina gave me notice of his intention to ask the same question. In reply to the question now put I would simply say that we are keeping in touch with the Canadian Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies as to a possible Canadian contribution for the relief of the earthquake victims in that section of Italy. However, at the moment it appears that Italian resources are adequate to meet all the requirements. The matter is being looked into further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is related to his own field of responsibility, where I am sure he will be much happier to remain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question is, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us the present position with regard to the work of the International Control Commission in Viet Nam and, specifically, can he say whether the suggestion that it be assigned increased responsibility for the policing of the borders of Cambodia and Laos so as to prevent infiltration from those countries has been accepted or is likely to be accepted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has not been accepted and at the moment the prospects do not seem good for its acceptance, although the Canadian government has indicated its willingness to comply with the request of Prince Sihanouk.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government had

any direct consultation with the governments of Poland and/or India in an attempt to have our views prevail with respect to the work of the commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been in contact with these governments, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is related to the one just asked. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house what steps the Canadian government has taken or is planning to take to persuade the government of the United States to treat the recent Hanoi statements in a positive way and to cease immediately the bombing of North Viet Nam in the hope that it may at last become possible to end that disastrous war by negotiation?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Siale for Exlernal Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there was a reported statement of the foreign minister of North Viet Nam on January 6 that if the bombing stopped North Viet Nam would be prepared to enter into discussions. There are some questions about this declaration that the Canadian government would like to have answered. I instructed our representative on the commission to proceed to Hanoi where he now is. I am now awaiting a report.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the present administration of the United States has refused to cease the bombing, and also in view of the fact that the war threatens to spread into Laos and Cambodia, has the Canadian government considered joining with other governments to bring this matter, either through the United Nations or otherwise, to the attention of the American government so that the bombing may stop and an opportunity may be taken for an end to that war?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There are limitations on the jurisdiction of the United Nations, as my hon. friend knows, but the Canadian government has not opposed discussion of this matter in the general assembly and would welcome an opportunity for the discussion of this whole question within the terms of the Geneva conference.


David Lewis: Why don't we take the
initiative?
January 22, 1968



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the house what action is being taken by the government to improve public relations between the people of Canada and the Company of Young Canadians?



REQUEST FOR CESSATION OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which is related to a previous question asked by the hon. member for Melville and not answered. In view of reports that three provincial premiers in western Canada have indicated that they may be interested in requesting that the Company of Young Canadians be withdrawn from their provinces, and in view of reports that the Quebec branch of this organization has broken away from the parent body and is still spending federal funds, will the government take the necessary steps to discontinue this unjustified and unnecessary spending of public funds?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: I will note that question, Mr. Speaker.



TOBACCO-IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. If I may, before putting the question I should like to congratulate him on his new appointment and wish him every success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The question is one of some urgency but perhaps the minister could take it as notice. Is he in a position to tell the house now what appropriate steps are being taken by his department to deal with the importation of tobacco from the Union of South Africa and from Rhodesia, which is presenting an immediate threat to the Canadian tobacco growing industry?
27053-365j
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for his good wishes, and I hope to be equal to the task which was entrusted to me by the right hon. Prime Minister.
With regard to tobacco imports, I shall get the necessary information and I shall give an answer to the hon. member in a few days.



CANADA PENSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
TOBACCO-INCREASED EXEMPTIONS TO ASSIST GROWERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he has any plans to assist the tobacco growers of Canada by obtaining from the provinces permission to increase the exemption under the Canada Pension Plan in regard to casual labourers from the present maximum of 24 days or $250 to the maximum requested of 40 days or $600.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Once again Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's question but I think that part of that problem comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government reached a decision in respect of assistance to the Sydney steel industry and is it prepared to make an announcement today as promised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not prepared to do so today, Mr. Speaker, but it will not be very long before we can say something definite.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may be permitted to do so, I direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to whom the Acting Prime Minister turned for information. Has this decision been finalized and, if so, when does he expect to make it known to the house?

January 22, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest that it is not sufficient for the Acting Prime Minister to turn to the Minister of Natural Health and Welfare to give the latter the authority required to answer that question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Prime Minister give us any idea as to precisely what is meant by "not very long" in regard to announcing this decision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would hope this week, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the cabinet dealt with the question on Thursday last I would ask the minister whether it reached a final decision and, if so, what is that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member again, that this question should really be answered by the Acting Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: Was he at the cabinet meeting? [Later:]


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that many weeks have now gone by since the blow that struck the Sydney steel industry on October 13, to be exact, and in view of the fact that the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia has intimated time and time again both to the press and at public gatherings that an announcement that something would be done was going to be made, would the minister advise the house whether this most serious question was dealt with at the last cabinet meeting, and could he give the house a clear reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The very
important question now asked by the hon. member is, to my understanding, pretty well the same question as that asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can clarify my question. Is it the intention of the government to phase out the steel industry, as indicated by the minister of [Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South).)
rural development in a speech he made in western Canada a few weeks ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that my hon. friend can be assured that my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been very vigilant in this matter, having in mind the interests of the people of Nova Scotia and of the area of that province particularly concerned.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister now make the statement that the government definitely promised would be made today?


Robert Muir: If you are so worried about the steel workers, answer.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDARY MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Inasmuch as British Columbia, according to the latest report has the second highest level of unemployment in Canada, what plans does the minister have for the promotion or development of secondary manufacturing industries in that province?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. I do not propose to intervene in or interfere with the minister's proposed answer, but I have the impression that the hon. member is asking for a statement which might more properly be made on motions.


Frank Howard: It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should make a statement on motions because that would be at some indefinite time in the future. Can he tell us now, because now is the crucial time? I point out that the minister was indicating his desire to say something about this matter.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that to recite the steps being taken would take too long in the question period. I will be glad to advise the hon. member directly, though.
January 22, 1368



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the latest reported interest of the United States department of labour, the F.B.I. and the R.C.M.P. in the operations of the Seafarers' International Union in both the United States and Canada, would the minister be prepared to have the maritime trustees appear before the standing committee on labour and employment so that the members of the house can be informed of their stewardship and of the facts relating to the latest developments?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there are no maritime trustees at the moment, the legislation having expired on December 31 last. I might say that I am expecting a written report from the maritime trustees on their activities up to December 31 last. When the report is received it will, of course, be tabled. Even though their trusteeship has expired it might be appropriate for them to appear before the committee, but until I have received the report I cannot say whether I should ask them to do so.



PICARD REPORT-DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN LONGSHOREMEN AND SHIPPING FEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister report on the status of the disagreement between the longshoremen in Montreal and the shipping federation relating to the Picard report, and is any action being taken to resolve this dispute before the spring shipping season opens?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the series of collective agreements between certain unions of the International Longshoremen's Association, and the shipping federation, as modified by the Picard report, expired on December 31 last, and there are now no collective agreements in existence. I might say that negotiations between the unions and the shipping federation have opened with a view to a new series of agreements and, as one might expect, the recommendations of the Picard report are being considered in the course of these negotia-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tions. Very recently-last week in fact-I assigned a senior official in the Department of Labour, Mr. Charles Poirier, to assist in the negotiations. He is the senior official of my department in the province of Quebec, and should be able to assist the parties in their discussions and negotiations.



POSSIBILITY OF PROCEEDING WITH LEGISLATION IN LIGHT OF OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the widespread and violent opposition across the country to Bill C-186, is it the intention of the minister and the government to proceed with this legislation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, this bill has been referred to the committee on labour and employment of this house. It has not had second reading. I hope that as soon as the committee is organized it will begin its hearings at as early a date as possible,



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs may I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. According to a departmental directive, starting April 1 a means test will be applied to veterans who wish to become established under the Veterans Land Act. In view of the serious inequities and hardships to veterans that may result, will the Prime Minister give immediate consideration to revoking this directive?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question included not only a question but also a statement of fact that I will refer to my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs who will be in the house tomorrow, I believe.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a most urgent question of
January 22, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister oi Finance, who is ultimately responsible for government expenditure. In view of the fact that the shipbuilding industry on the west coast is now suffering from a 50 per cent unemployment rate, will the minister give immediate and serious consideration to reinstating the contract that was awarded to Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited in connection with destroyer conversion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if all questions involving financial matters were addressed to the Minister of Finance I think he would answer nearly every question put in the house. I suggest that this question should be directed to the minister responsible.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, prior to the recess we were told during our discussion of the budget by the Minister of Finance and by the then minister of national revenue that consideration would be given to industries that were in serious difficulty. Therefore I thought the minister was the logical person to direct my question to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister did not tell me to whom to address it so may I address it to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the unemployment level prevailing in the shipyards will the Minister of National Defence take under serious consideration the reinstating of the destroyer conversion contract that was allocated to Burrard Dry Dock in North Vancouver?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the conversion of the "Restigouche" class was deferred for an indefinite period as a result of the budget restraints imposed upon the Department of National Defence along with other departments. I am very sorry, therefore, but I cannot at this time agree to the suggestion of the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was not referring to general policy. May I ask the minister a question about the contract which was allocated with respect to the conversion of the destroyer Chaudiere. Will it be reinstated?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It will not be, not at this time.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Can the minister advise us whether the
I Mr. Winch.)

processing of the tenders for the four DDH's-destroyer escorts-has been completed? If so, how soon may we expect the award of these tenders?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated it was expected that a contract could be entered into early in the spring, in March or April. We are working to that deadline.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hardly know which minister to direct my question to, which minister is "it", so to speak. Will the appropriate minister give immediate attention to not delaying the construction of research and coastguard vessels in British Columbia so that we may keep in Canada many hundreds of skilled shipyard workers who at present are being invited to go to the United States to work under guaranteed employment contracts?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made her representations and I assume that the minister who is "it" has noted them.
fTranslation]



WINTER NAVIGATION ON ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wished to put a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
As ice-jams which have formed and are still forming on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec have caused floods, and as navigable waters like the St. Lawrence come under federal jurisdiction, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to compensate the victims of these floods?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the Minister of Transport.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since those ice-jams and floods are due in the first place to the weather and second, mainly to the almost criminal negligence of the Minister of Transport who fails to solve those problems-
January 22, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not take advantage of a question to make charges; he must limit himself to asking a question or requesting information.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary question: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if the government has given or will give the people responsible for the use of those icebreakers instructions to intervene effectively instead of remaining idle, as has been the case this year, when ice-jams begin to build up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he also intends to draw that matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport to make him alter the policy of his department concerning the activities of the icebreakers on the St. Lawrence during the winter?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which will be noted by the minister.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not a representation, Mr. Speaker, it is a question.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extreme ice conditions in the St. Lawrence river this year will the government now realize that there is no future in icebreaking, forget about icebreaking in the St. Lawrence in the winter and use the ports of Halifax and Saint John?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since there are great possibilities for winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to take that problem into consideration instead of preventing the economic development of one region in favour of another?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF DELAY IN NEW INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Trade and Commerce which is of deep concern to western grain growers. Can the minister report to the house on the present status of the international world wheat agreement? Can he assure us that the tardiness of a number of countries in not signing the agreement will not delay its coming into effect on July 1 next?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the situation remains unaltered. It is still difficult to sell wheat in world markets. We are in constant touch with the producing countries of the world. I have been in touch with them about this matter. I feel that wheat prices will be such as to encourage the implementation of the international wheat agreement. As the hon. member will recall, the date for the ratification of the agreement is in mid-1968, and I am still hopeful that that will be the case.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport concerning water pollution on the Pacific coast. Can the minister tell the house whether pollution by oil has resulted from the sinking of the motor vessel Schiedyk in Nootka Sound just off Vancouver Island? Has the vessel been salvaged or destroyed?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question is in order, but if a reply is ready perhaps the house will hear it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, realizing that the minister was indisposed I asked for a report on this matter over the week end. Summarizing the extensive report I wish to say that all necessary steps and precautions are being taken to prevent the pollution of coastal waters. A log boom has been thrown around the area and absorbent straw is available. Degreasing solvents are also available. Of the 600 tons of oil that were reported to be in the tanker approximately 300 tons have escaped, at a rate of about three gallons per minute. That oil is not causing serious pollution at this time. There has been no loss of marine life and no loss of life on land among wildlife or water fowl.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was wondering whether the hon. member was going ahead with the full report.
January 22, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID



INDIA-CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION FOR POPULATION CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I gave him notice of it. During the visit to Ottawa last week of the minister of health and family planning of India did he make a request, formally or informally, for a Canadian contribution to India's population control program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister from India visited the external aid officials. I have not had a report from them but when I get it I shall be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Knowing how he likes to hew to the law of the land and maintain it to the letter, may I ask him when he will adhere to the law of the land with respect to the declaration of straight base lines which parliament passed some years ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, we have already begun the process of marking straight base lines and there will be further progress in this regard. This is a matter that must be carried out in a way that will observe the alleged rights of other countries. We are observing these so as not to defeat the purposes which my hon. friend and I both have in our minds.


Frank Howard: I thought the government recognized those rights some time ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question relates to the amendments to the Unemployment Insur-

ance Act forecast in the resolution which was introduced today. Is it the intention of the government that these amendments should be considered and the bill passed during the course of the present session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question I can say that that is the government's present intention since this is an item of high priority.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 21, 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 on Thursday, December 21, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration together with an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, shortly before the house recessed for Christmas on December 211 was making some remarks about this proposed legislation. Since then the leadership contest has, of course, been resolved- not the leadership contest within the government but the contest for the leadership of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-with the appointment last week of Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard as the chief executive and operating officers of the corporation. I am sure all of us who took part in the events leading up to the introduction of this proposed legislation into this chamber, as well as all who served on the broadcasting committee and are interested in broadcasting even in a peripheral way, wish the new officers every success in what will be a difficult and responsible task, especially in the context of the constitutional situation we are experiencing at this time.
I realize I have only about two minutes of my speaking time remaining at this stage in the examination of the bill. In my remarks on December 21 I drew attention to a number of provisions in the bill with which I did not find myself completely in agreement, weaknesses which I hoped could be corrected in the course of our clause by clause study. In the seconds remaining to me I should like to
January 22, 1968

say there are other areas in the bill which leave me in a state of anxiety.
My criticisms and comments of December 21 did not express my point of view completely. For example, I am not happy about the provision which authorizes a five-year capital budget for the corporation, though I believe a period longer than one year would be valuable. I realize that the new officers would have to operate under severe restrictions if they were obliged to return year after year for approval of their capital budget, and I believe they deserve more than one year of leeway in this regard. Nevertheless I am not happy about the five year provision and it seems to me an acceptable compromise could be worked out that would be satisfactory both to the officials of the corporation and to those of us here who must try to exercise control over the affairs of the C.B.C. My feeling is that we should agree on a three year rather than a five year period.
Again, I am disturbed about the clause calling for fines up to $100,000 should broadcasters violate certain provisions of the bill. In my opinion this is unnecessarily harsh and, by implication, discriminatory inasmuch as it implies that broadcasters in the private sector make sufficient money to enable them to withstand penalties of this kind. This, I submit, is both untrue and unfair.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that I have reached the limit of the time allotted to me. I look forward to the clause by clause examination of this measure and hope that constructive amendments will be accepted by the government. In conclusion, I wish Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard every success in the discharge of their new responsibilities.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, last year my Christmas present to the Secretary of State who is piloting this legislation through the house was a promise not to speak in order that the bill could pass quickly. Unfortunately it did not, so my Christmas present this year will come early. I shall make a speech but I promise to make it a reasonably short one.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
First, I should like to join with my hon. friend from Winnipeg South, a former broadcaster, as I am, in expressing good wishes to Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard on their appointments to head the C.B.C. I would like to offer only one or two caveats about the danger of appointments of this kind where neither of the parties has had direct experience in the broadcasting field. It seems to me 27053-366
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that the problems of the C.B.C. arise primarily in Toronto and Montreal, the originating points for the two language networks in this country. Yet these gentlemen who are being brought in are being posted to Ottawa. Therefore they have the formidable task of not only learning about the broadcasting industry but also of dealing with problems in the C.B.C. arising 100 miles away in the one case and in the other several hundred miles away from their seat of operations. I know both gentlemen will prove in time to be excellent people in these positions. But I am concerned about whether shock treatment is not needed now to help the C.B.C. and whether the public can afford on the job training for people who have great potential but have had no direct experience in this industry.
Sir, it should be a great season for television and radio. Canadian minds will be diverted to other matters than the settling-in problems of Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard. We should have new programs this year. One will be "The Perils of Paul," an educational, lighthearted series on the constitution and, more particularly, one man's jousting with the doctrine of cabinet solidarity. Another program I can see coming up is "The Perils of the Other Paul," subtitled the story of a man who goes through life proving that what matters is not what a fellow has in his head but what is on his head a case of dye and do. Then there could be "Mitch's Marauders," the story of a gang which takes money from rich and poor alike, leaving everybody poor. I would not like to leave out a Canadian version of "Green Acres," the story of a man trying to prove that his kind of corn can grow in the cities and, finally, "Mission Impossible," which will turn out to be the case for most of the Liberal party leadership aspirants.
With regard to the broadcasting bill I want to make three points and I shall do so briefly because later they will be the subject of amendments. I would like to indicate to the minister what some of us in the official opposition would like to see by way of change in this legislation. The first point deals with clause 2(h) which states:
(b) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail;
My quarrel with that is that it could be a guide to the Canadian radio and television commission and to the cabinet when the issuance of licences is dealt with. If the C.B.C.
January 22, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting puts in a claim tor a particular area the licence might very well be awarded to the C.B.C. even though, as we know in the case of Saskatoon, the C.B.C. is not immediately able to erect a station in the area. The danger of this form of statement of broadcasting principle is that when the public purse is slim, and it is pretty slim now, the C.B.C. could tie up many areas in Canada. The other station in Moncton, New Brunswick, is an obvious example in the maritimes, and there are five or six altogether across Canada. This subclause could be considered a direction to the commission that these licences be held for the C.B.C., and yet the public would not have the protection of the C.B.C. having to erect the stations immediately and give service to the people in those areas. In short, there are areas in Canada which could be denied the option of choice.
I do not see why we cannot change this provision so that the issue would be resolved in favour of the public. For example, I can see that in Saskatoon and other places both stations might be owned by private companies but one would be on the C.T.V. network and the other on the C.B.C. network. I do not think it is necessarily public ownership of the second station that we are looking for in all places. Surely what we want is to give the public the right to choose between two networks. I hope the minister will be good enough to consider an amendment when that part of clause 2 is considered.
My second point deals with clause 29. The maximum fine that can be imposed on malefactors is set forth in this clause as $100,000. I suggest that this places a stigma on the industry and really tags it with deliquency. In my opinion a smaller amount would do the job just as well. After all, surely nobody seriously thinks that any magistrate would impose a fine of $100,000. I cannot see that any station would break a regulation to the extent that it would profit by as much as $100,000 by so doing. Therefore I suggest we take a second look at this clause and bring the proposed maximum fine down to a more reasonable amount.
My final point deals with clause 47 which covers the drawing up of a five year capital program and a five year operating budget. The evidence of the minister's very capable deputy minister, Mr. Steele, was to the effect that one could forecast operating budgets reasonably well for three years and that thereafter one could not foresee the difficulties that could arise in the fourth and fifth years. I simply suggest that we make the legislation
[Mr. McCleave.l

fit the facts and that when this clause is considered we amend it to set the term at three years instead of five.
I know that some people would like to have the budgets introduced on a year by year basis and debate them year by year. But undoubtedly a look can be taken at broadcasting every year because we will have the estimates of the Canadian radio and television commission before us and therefore will not be sloughing off C.B.C. affairs for three years or five years. On balance I think it is a good idea to try for long-range planning but a five-year period is impractical. A three-year period has been found to work and in my opinion we should strive for that. These are the points that I or somebody else will be raising and that I will be supporting as the debate proceeds.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on clause 2 dealing with general provisions of Bill No. C-163 which provides in paragraph (d) that-
-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, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian resources-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I understand that Bill No. C-163 has not yet carried but on the French network of the C.B.C. television we too often see Russian, Polish, Ukranian films with subtitles or translated. When we read the subtitles printed at the bottom of the picture- when we care-we realize that the translation is a language that almost no Canadian can understand. I believe it is abusing the Canadian public to present such films which may have some value, I admit. We are given, for instance, Italian, or Russian or Polish films of high quality which Canadians cannot understand because quite often the subtitle below the picture is the same colour as the picture, white on white; so you can imagine if it is easy to read. And they are shown to us nearly every week. Not later than last week, I was watching one of those movies, following the national and international news, at the end of the evening. Frankly, I must say that the management of the C.B.C. or those who are responsible for such programs do not choose too adequately the movies presented to Canadian audiences as far as quality is concerned.
January 22, 1968

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the responsible people of the C.B.C. should, as Bill No. C-163 recommends, choose top quality movies, movies that Canadians are able to understand. Let them show English movies to English Canadians and French movies to French Canadians.
Subsection (e) of the bill mentions that:
-all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available;
This is the reply given by the minister every time we ask for the extension of the C.B.C. French network to British Columbia. When we call for C.B.C. television in areas such as Chibougamau-Chapais, in northern Quebec, or English television in northern Ontario, the minister always replies that as public funds become available, the network will be extended to the areas not served at present by the C.B.C.
Mr. Chairman, since 1962, we have been asking the C.B.C. and the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to carry out the objective of the government, that is, to provide the C.B.C. programs in remote areas, to offer, for instance, French programs to French Canadians in British Columbia and English programs to Quebec residents who do not understand French. We have no objection to that.
We have been asking for those services for the Canadian people since 1962 but the necessary funds have not yet been made available.
However, Mr. Chairman, when we listen, for example, to the C.B.C. evening news at 11 o'clock, either on the English or on the French channel, we notice that the C.B.C. sends thousands of emissaries or employees all over the world. The fact, Viet Nam in the national news has a more prominent place than Canada itself.
We have emissaries in Japan, China, Africa and India. We have people in Moscow, in London and in Europe, in short in every country in the world. We also have some in Cuba.
However, Mr. Chairman, we do not have the means to provide television coverage for the Canadians who live in Canada. How can such an inconsistent argument be conceived? We spend unsparingly in every country of the world but we cannot provide television coverage for our Canadian people. Then, we are told: When funds are available, we shall provide television coverage for the Canadian people who are without it. I have never heard in my life such an argument.
27053-366J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
We spend millions. The C.B.C. costs a fortune to the Canadian people. It is not the Africans nor the Vietnamese who pay our taxes but the Canadian people. Instead of giving services here in Canada, we spend moneys abroad. We send people abroad to stroll about under tropical suns. In the meantime, our people, in northern British Columbia, in northern Ontario, in northern Manitoba and in northern Saskatchewan are without television. Let us shiver! Let us pay taxes! Let us send C.B.C. employees to warm up their hides in fairer climes! Now, that is the logic of the government.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are C.B.C. people who will not appreciate what I am now saying. I see some of them every evening, people who are in Viet Nam. At this time of year, in January, February, they are in bathing suits. It is warm. Millions are spent to have those people travel. This week in Viet Nam, the next in Japan, and the following, in some other country. He may even be transferred to Africa. And the Canadian people are asked to wait for the services of the C.B.C. in. their own homes.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop public funds from being wasted in other countries. Television programs show us photographs of North or South Vietnamese being killed or of Americans imprisoned after falling into a trap. This may be important, but in my opinion there are more important things in Canada which should be shown to the Canadian public. However, that is how things are in Canada.
Canadians are more interested in what is happening in British Columbia than in what is happening in India. One should know what is happening in India. But when you ask a Canadian: Do you know British Columbia? He answers: No. When you ask someone in British Columbia: Do you know the province of Quebec? He answers: It is the province which wants to separate from the rest of the country. With the exception of cities such as Toronto, where many people visit the province of Quebec, or Montreal and Quebec, where people often go to Toronto, what is known of Quebec? Nothing. What do we know of New Brunswick, of Prince Edward Island? Almost nothing.
Further on, it is said that the C.B.C. should strive to maintain national unity. The purpose of the national broadcasting system must prevail. National unity will be brought to the
5798	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting attention of the people. In fact, the bill provides that. I have it here:
-contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
9 (4:30 p.m.)
What is happening in Japan may to a certain point be of interest but not only that, what is happening in China may also be of interest but not only that. I have mentioned it and I am saying it for the hundredth time. On the national news of the C.B.C., out of approximately 15 minutes, we are given ten minutes of foreign news, when it is not twelve, with only three minutes of national news. And there are other tricks too. We have news at six o'clock or 6.30 and other news at
11.	At 6.30, there are regional news-which are called national-that do not reach all corners of the province of Quebec nor all French-speaking areas as far as the French network is concerned. The eleven o'clock news bulletin is different from the 6.30 p.m. newscast, which is often of national interest. The latter is disregarded and another bulletin is given, consisting mostly of foreign news.
Mr. Chairman, this is beyond me, since the corporation is supposed to serve the Canadian people. Why should our farmers, workers, miners be interested in foreign countries? What they want to know is what is taking place in their own district. Let us call back our officials travelling throughout the world in order to serve the Canadian people and inform them about national events. I do not object to those people keeping their jobs. I am not suggesting that they should be dismissed, but let us stop paying their plane fares and prevent them from travelling from one country to another and let us put them to work here in Canada to inform our population. It is up to the C.B.C. to inform the Canadian people about national events. Such is the task that the corporation should perform in our country.
Mr. Chairman, paragraph (f) stipulates and I quote:
-there should be provided, under the management of a corporation established by parliament for the purpose, a national broadcasting service that is predominantly Canadian in content and character;
That meets my views. If the bill is passed, put into force and respected, then perhaps we will have more Canadians in the C.B.C., instead of having outsiders, or some of our own people who are rather outsiders.

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
Clause 2(g) (ii) stipulates as follows:
-be extended to all parts oi Canada, as public funds become available,
It is always the same old story-
-as public funds become available,
Mr. Chairman, it is physically possible to give C.B.C. radio and television service to the country. Is it more difficult to give television service to Vancouver than to show televised programs on Viet Nam in Canada? If it is physically possible to show us films taken by Canadians in Africa, do not tell me it is more difficult to extend to Vancouver English and French programs of the C.B.C. It is certainly not more costly but, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) should practise in Canada what his department or what the C.B.C. practise in foreign countries. We are accusing nobody.
We now have a new management in the C.B.C.
I congratulate the new chairman and his assistant or deputy chairman and I feel that, in view of their competence in that field, we can expect them to take attitudes, to reach decisions that will satisfy the Canadian citizens and take their aspirations into consideration. It is only on that condition that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will further the understanding that is so important for all Canadians whatever their origin.
Mr. Chairman, paragraph (i) of clause 2 reads as follows:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting.
We agree. There are various ways of educating the people, the young, the adults, men, women. Education includes a lot of things.
These last few years, for example, the only people invited to appear on C.B.C. educational programs such as "Conference de Presse", "Point de Mire", "Tous pour Un" or "Deux plus Un", are those who advocate separatism or a socialist state, the nationalization of all private enterprise or almost, and the nationalization of all means of production and distribution. These people are always appearing on C.B.C. programs.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion these programs are not truly educational. I do not object to the fact that those people are invited, but other opinions should be equally represented.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
January 22, 1968


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Does the hon. member have some statistics or specific facts available indicating how many they are-either Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters, indepen-dentists or socialists-what are the specific facts or statistics in that connection.
Could the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) supply them to us?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I wish to say that I do not have a specific figure, but I know that all those programs on public opinion which I see on television present most of the time separatists or socialists as guests. Each time a socialist arrives from Europe he is immediately interviewed on the C.B.C. It always happens like that and such has been the situation for three or four years.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow me another question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Even though the hon. member for Villeneuve does not have the exact figures-granting he does not have them -could he give us some approximate statistics? What is the basis for such an assertion? Could we have-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have
already said this but I shall repeat it again: I have been watching television programs and even now-


An hon. Member:: Almost all of them?


David Réal Caouette: -yes, almost all of them, on television.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not have time. Even in the evening?


David Réal Caouette: Even in the evening, certainly. On public opinion programs, I notice that the Liberals, who are in office, are perhaps invited less frequently by the C.B.C. than Conservatives, the members of the N.D.P. or of the Social Credit party. It is the separatists we are seeing there-maybe not the hon. member for Lapointe yet, because he is not taken seriously by the separatists of the province of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: -and he knows it.


Gilles Grégoire: Figures should be given.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


David Réal Caouette: I understand, but we can obtain some directly from the C.B.C. We only have to put questions to the Secretary of State who will tell us the names of those invited by the C.B.C. to take part in public opinion programs.


Gilles Grégoire: Will you put that question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, we shall. The minister is not aware of it, I am sure, but we can put questions on the order paper and obtain replies. I shall certainly do so to know exactly what persons have been invited by the C.B.C. and what political views they expressed. For instance, the leader of the sovereignty-partnership movement in the province of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, has appeared three days in a row on the C.B.C. network. I heard him last night on the program "Deux plus un". He said he did not know where he was going but that this would not stop him.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The day before yesterday, it was Mr. Ren6 Levesque in Victoriaville; the other day he was shown in Chicoutimi. I think it was Victoriaville first, and Chicoutimi next. The following evening, there was a half hour television program.
Have you seen a Liberal, a Conservative, a member of the N.D.P. or a Creditiste speak on television on the same subject or in similar circumstances? No. We have seen the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on television, when he was a Credististe, because he was taken seriously then. Nobody takes him seriously today.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member for Villeneuve allow me another question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.
I admit, Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Villeneuve says exactly what I admit: That I am not seen as often now as when I was a Credististe.
Then, that means that independentists are victims of discrimination.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, there is no discrimination.
There was a party recently in Montreal during the holiday season. All evening, the hon. member for Lapointe ran after the cameras to be photographed. I saw him in action. He will say that it is discrimination-


Gilles Grégoire: Was the hon. member for Villeneuve invited?
5800	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


David Réal Caouette: Certainly I was. However I stayed home. I did not run after the television cameras, as the hon. member for Lapointe usually does.
Then, Mr. Chairman, that does not mean that the hon. member for Lapointe must never be invited by the C.B.C. No. He must be invited just like the others. He is the leader of a political group; very well. The C.B.C. can invite him. However, the C.B.C. airwaves must not be used to serve one cause more than another. I am against that, not againt the C.B.C. but against some individuals in the corporation who decide what invitations will be sent out.
Therefore, I think that if Bill No. C-163 is applied reasonably, if its spirit is respected, it will help to make the C.B.C. management understand that this corporation must serve all the people and not only a group of people, in short that this corporation is dependent on the public funds of the whole country-not only of one region, of one group of people, but of all the people-and that it must aim at serving the Canadian people as a whole.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to offer my congratulations to Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard on their appointments to administer the affairs of the C.B.C. I am sure there is no one in this house who does not wish them the very best of success in their new assignment. We all know their tasks will not be easy. There is a tremendous challenge before them not only to administer the affairs of the C.B.C. in an effective way, particularly in view of the prospect of budgetary allotments being approved for a longer period than they have been in the past, but also to lay out the policy for program management in the C.B.C. So at the outset of my brief remarks I wish these two gentlemen well and I trust that as they assume the responsibility for broadcasting by the publicly owned corporation they will be able to meet effectively the challenge and responsibility which face them.
What concerns me most of all in this bill is that the changes it will implement so far as the C.B.C. is concerned offer little prospect for improvement in the area of the managerial control of programming. I think this legislation very definitely improves the technical side of the C.B.C. and of broadcasting in general, both in television and radio. But it disturbs me that I can see very little in it that gives any assurance at this time that there will be an improvement in programming.
[Mr. Gregolre.l
DEBATES	January 22, 1968
Some of those responsible for the production aspect of programming believe that the right to freedom of speech gives them authority to express themselves as they see fit over the public broadcasting services of the country. In fact there are many producers who believe that the country owes them large budgets in order to permit them to express their own ideas. I believe this has been one of the great weaknesses of management in the past years. It is imperative under the democratic process that when public money is spent on public broadcasting everyone involved in the process of broadcasting must be responsible to a higher authority. It is only in fulfilling our responsibility to the people who supply the wherewithal to cover the cost of the C.B.C. that we can ever expect to bring about effective policies in relation to programming as well as management.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that in my belief Germany has worked out a more satisfactory basis for a programming policy than any other public broadcasting system in the free world. They have done so by establishing a body of people numbering 70 who give advice on programming policy and who reflect public opinion by themselves being representatives of various organizations. These organizations include the federal and provincial parliaments, organizations such as the home and school organization and the German counterparts of the Canadian teachers federation, the Legion, workers unions, agricultural organizations, civic clubs, and the like. In other words, the programming policy on the public broadcasting system reflects the views of a cross-section of the public.
This bill provides for a full time executive body of five members and a part time body of ten members. It is my opinion that while these men may be able to supervise the technical aspects of broadcasting in a very effective way they will have little time left to give proper attention to the programming policy. It also seems to me that the number of members is not large enough to give true representation of a cross-section of the population of Canada so as to arrive at a proper consensus. There should have been within the bill some means of providing a more satisfactory sounding board for public opinion in this regard. In fact this is one of the most difficult areas that I believe Dr. Davidson will face simply because he will find it extremely difficult to find enough time to devote to this area of management. Furthermore, he will not
January 22, 1968

have the necessary support from a cross-section of public opinion, support which he will need to effect proper supervision of the corporation.
When I spoke on this bill previously my remarks were made from the standpoint of a parent and I raised the important problem of family life in relation to the bill. I think there is no more important aspect of this bill than programming and its effect on family life. Our late Governor General Vanier was moved to establish the Vanier Institute of the Family in this country. In my view television could be a most effective means of assisting in achieving or preventing the achievement of this goal.
I do not wish at this time to deal with programming at any length. A great deal of time has already been devoted to this subject in this debate. However, I could not help but think that last night on the program "The Way It Is" there was a deliberate attempt to mock one of the most important aspects of family life and the whole moral fibre of this country. The program concerned religion but in fact it was nothing more than a straight, deliberate mockery of Christianity and religious issues. Very often it seemed that the reaction of the audience was what I can only describe as hyena laughter. The program was intended to make a mockery of religion and create controversy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.ra.)
When we go back to the early history of the C.B.C. and in particular consider some of the recommendations of the Aird commission in 1929, which were actually a very important factor in the emerging of the C.B.C. at a later date, we find it was agreed then by those who took part in the debate in this house that the Aird commission had stated something very important so far as public broadcasting was concerned in saying that where religious broadcasting was allowed there should be regulations prohibiting statements of a controversial nature.
It seems to me that those responsible for the type of show that was seen across this nation last night-I refer to "The Way It Is"-and especially that part of the program making a mockery of Christianity, are acting in defiance of what has been accepted as a most important principle. It was announced last night on this program that next week a portion of the program will be devoted to drugs. In fact, it was announced that part of the program would be on the drug culture of Canada. A statement was made to the effect

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that whether we like it or not we live in a drug culture. I ask this question: Is there any assurance to the parents of this country that this program will not be yet another promotion for l.s.d. and marijuana, as has been the case in previous programs?
Where is there that chain of responsibility that will effectively guide those responsible for management and program production and make sure that this type of program does not do further damage to the young people of this country? Will the program bring out such reports as I read just the other day in the Globe and Mail where it was reported that in New York city alone 250 young people have been committed to mental institutions because they are suffering from insanity caused by the use of l.s.d.? Will it bring out some of the other dangers in the general use of drugs, in the smoking of pot or the use of other drugs so easily available to our young people? Will the program encourage our young people to participate in this kind of harmful activity?
We contend that we must have some assurances as we consider this bill because I repeat that I can see nothing in the bill that will place the new management of the C.B.C. in any better position. There is nothing in the bill that we can see which will control or direct programming policy so far as our public broadcasting system is concerned. For this reason I intend, as I said before-and I think there are many in this house who will agree with me and I hope the minister will also agree-to move an amendment that will strengthen the bill by giving those responsible for the management of the C.B.C. more specific direction and guide lines.
Tragically, the C.B.C. has had a strong tendency to produce plays, interviews and indepth stories which can only be interpreted by parents as intended to undermine family life. This is why I appeal to the committee and the minister to see whether it is possible to amend the wording of the bill in such a way that the operations of the corporation and the responsibility and authority of those charged with its management will be strengthened. The amendments to which I have referred will be put forward to this end.
I would again remind the committee that unless there is a channel of responsibility for everyone who sits in any kind of position of authority we can expect what has been happening all too often in the pattern of events in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I refer to those who are able to commit a constant assault on character, undermine faith in
5802	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting God or in religion in general, undermine respect for law and authority and destroy sound home life and the knowledge of right and wrong. It seems to me this has come about because of the domination of a minority who misuse the C.B.C. to spread propaganda and perversion of whatever kind it may be.
More and more of the money of the taxpayers of this country is being diverted to deal with the increasing social wreckage. It seems to me that our national broadcasting corporation ought to have as one of its basic aims the strengthening of this aspect of Canadian life.
I am reminded of the fact that only two years ago 80,000 Canadian mothers and citizens presented members of this house with a challenge. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to listen to the recommendations that they made? The home and the family must be given some consideration in our deliberations in this house on the bill before us.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I tell the committee that we intend to introduce amendments which we hope will receive favourable consideration. In our view our amendments will strengthen the bill. We do not wish to destroy it. We do not wish to block it or prevent it from being passed by the house. It is necessary that the bill be passed as quickly as possible. However, we are very sure that in this and other areas the bill must be strengthened. In this respect I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South who has spoken about other aspects of the bill which need strengthening. Therefore, in spite of all the time that has already been spent in the house and the committee on this matter we should not think we have done all we can to make this bill what it ought to be in regard to responsibility, proper control and lines of authority so far as the management of our public broadcasting service is concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if you recall, the last time we discussed the Bill No. C-163 we were on an amendment which I moved on Wednesday, December 20, 1967. I then moved to replace the word "should" in clause 2 (b) in which it is provided that:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
I moved to replace the word "should" by the word "shall", because in fact, in the former legislation, there was also a proviso that the radio and television stations should be owned by Canadian citizens, in view of the

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
fact that airwaves are limited and, consequently, so are the licences. And I asked that the wording be changed to the word "shall" so that radio and television stations would be effectively owned by Canadian citizens and residents.
I was also complaining about the fact that the only two private television stations in the city of Quebec were owned in majority by foreign interests, that is Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited, an American company, and I was asking to change this wording in the new legislation so that such things would not happen again.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I gave a list of the shareholders, directors and officers of the two Quebec television stations, namely channel 4 CFCM-TV and channel 5 CKMI-TV, Which both belong to the same company, foreign interests. I also mentioned who the shareholders were and how the law was being circumvented.
Since then, Mr. Chairman, I have received several letters from citizens living in Ontario, out west and in the maritimes-I could produce those letters-who tell me: you have managed to get the names of the real owners of the Quebec TV station; we find that in an underhanded way it belongs to American interest; could you send us a list of the owners and shareholders of the privately-owned television stations in Toronto and in Hamilton, I believe. I even have two letters coming one from the west and the other from the maritimes.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), before the end of the consideration of this bill, could ask her officials to prepare as quickly as possible, in order that she may table it, the list of shareholders of radio and television stations. Somebody may ask why radio and television? Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason can be found specifically in clause 2 of Bill No. C-163, which reads as follows, and I quote:
It is hereby declared that
(a) broadcasting undertakings in Canada make use of radio frequencies that are public property and such undertakings constitute a single system,-
Licences to operate a radio or a television station cannot be granted to all those who request them, because in order to operate such stations, they must have a wave length and wave lengths are not numerous; as a matter of fact, they are even scarce.
January 22, 1SS3

This is why freedom does not necessarily exist in that field; only those who obtain a permit from the federal government and the Department of Transport following the approval of the Board of Broadcast Governors can operate television and radio stations. The members of that organization do not grant many permits, because the airwaves are scarce. And it is precisely on account of the exclusiveness, the scarcity in that field that a permit is necessary and that consequently, the public must exercise greater control on the operation of those radio and television stations.
Since the airwaves are part of the public property, since they are controlled and restricted, it seems to me it is essential to know who uses them and how they do it.
Subclause (b), the one which I would like to have amended, states:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to preserve and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
But if our airwaves, our operating permits for radio and telvision stations are left in the hands of foreigners, then, Mr. Chairman, the law no longer applies. Here, in the case of the two Quebec stations, we have seen that the majority holders of shares in those stations are Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited. With such a name, one would think that Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited is a Canadian corporation.
But when one looks at the ownership of Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited, one finds that 51.834 per cent of the shares are held by American citizens, that is 900,390 shares out of a total of 1,737,072. Therefore, in this indirect way American citizens can control television programs.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I believe that, according to the requests and to the letters I have received not only from Quebec but from other provinces, the Secretary of State should table in the house the list of shareholders, of the owners, and the number of shares each holds in these radio and television stations.
I see for instance that in the two television stations of Quebec, CHRC Limited holds 1999 shares out of a total of 10,000. CHRC Limited is a radio station. Who owns CHRC Limited? These are all intermediary companies that become owners of the television stations and it is also noted that station CKCV a competitor of CHRC Limited, also owns 1,998 of the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
10,000	common shares of Television-Quebec-Canada Ltee station.
So I should like to know if all these intermediary radio and television companies are amalgamated with each other. I should like to know who really owns each of these radio and television stations and this is all the more important since airwaves are public property and the allocation of wave lengths is very limited and these companies must obtain a licence, and furthermore all these data are already available to the Board of Broadcast Governors.
Then I shall ask the hon. minister whether she is prepared to table as soon as possible to-day or to-morrow, the list that her officials will be able to let us have for each television station. As far I am concerned, I would be interested in a list of all the radio and T.V. station owners and shareholders in Quebec, as well as the number of shares they own.
Would the hon. minister be prepared to table a list of the shareholders of radio and television stations in Quebec? And if other members are interested in getting a similar list regarding other provinces, would the hon. minister also be prepared to table such a list?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any particular reason for my department to go to all the difficulty of getting this information just for purposes of idle curiosity. If the hon. gentleman has some reason for asking for certain information in connection with a particular station then I will, of course, undertake to do my best to get that information. However, it may not be available instantaneously. I hope this debate is not going to drag on for many more days, but if it does I might have time to get the information for him before it concludes.
If the hon. member is asking for information about a particular station I will be glad to undertake to try to get it if there is any point in doing so. All kinds of questions have been put on the order paper and other information has been requested, but we cannot have the time of civil servants occupied in unproductive ways on questions which arise out of curiosity, the answers to which are not really intended to be made use of in one way or another. If the hon. member is serious about this and makes his request, then I will certainly give it my attention.
1Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I have a very serious reason to ask that.
5804	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting In my last intervention on that subject, in December, many citizens-I do not say thousands, but several citizens from Quebec and other provinces-mentioned the following point, that in the majority of Canadian television stations, American film companies own great numbers of shares, so that they can impose films they want to show and which our television stations, even though they are controlled in a majority by Canadian shareholders, are forced, by these American companies, to show; precisely because they own so many shares.
Another reason I would like to mention would stem from what the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) said last December 21, as reported at page 5744 of Hansard. I quote:
-all the programs on channel 4, otherwise he would have noticed that the programs broadcast are typically programs of interest to Quebecers.
And the hon. member for Lotbiniere added: Consequently, I do not believe that from a social and cultural point of view, the threat is as great as the hon. member would lead us to believe.
The cultural aspect comes up. If, in the other stations, such as in the Quebec stations, Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited holds a majority of shares, it is obvious then that Famous Players would much rather have the television stations in Quebec show American films dubbed in French instead of original French movies which are inevitably of a greater cultural value if they come to us in the original version.
It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that if we are continuously buried under translations of American films simply translated into French, where everything is arranged for technical rather than for artistic or cultural reasons. Then, in such cases, cultural and social values are not protected on channel 4, in Quebec, simply because a film company holds many shares in the Quebec television station and, for strictly financial purposes, it chooses to show its own films.
I was told-and this is the answer I want to get from the hon. Secretary of State-that according to the list of the shareholders of privately owned television stations not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, companies such as Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited have tremendous interests in almost every such television stations, so that the culture which we think we are developing in Canada is influenced by American companies, by film producers instead of the Canadian and Quebec firm.
[Mr. Grggoire.l
DEBATES	January 22, 1968
If those figures could be obtained in order to prove that if Canada is being increasingly Americanized by a medium as important as television, it is precisely because American interests and film producers have their say in cultural matters in Quebec and in Canada.
I feel therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary of State will agree with me that such an investigation is essential. It is important that we be enlightened about this matter, because it is not only of matter of safeguarding economic values, but actually of preserving cultural and social values.
I should also like to point out to the hon. Secretary of State that such a report need not take that long to prepare. There are not that many T.V. stations in Canada; there are barely 10 in Quebec. Moreover, that information is already in the files of the Board of Broadcast Governors. It is just a matter of getting them out. We could then check the facts and, as early as tomorrow, resume our study. We could then see whether Famous Players really control culture in Canada, whether they can impose upon us in Quebec mere translations of American films which do not have, by far, the value of original films in the language of origin.
I think that the minister will then understand that my argument has a serious basis. If the minister agrees to supply these data only for the Quebec stations I will be satisfied. I believe that there are possibly 10 private stations in Quebec. It would suffice to bring out photostats of the shareholders lists on file with the bureau of broadcast governors and we could have them on hand when this bill is taken into consideration tonight at eight o'clock or tomorrow at 2.30.
Citizens from other provinces have written to me to have the same information concerning their own television stations. They should ask their own members to ask for this if they think it is appropriate.
So, in view of the serious reason I have given, would the Secretary of State, be willing to supply us, let us say by tomorrow at 2.30, with the lists of shareholders and the number of shares owned by each in private television stations of Quebec? Can the minister give us this?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to find out whether such information is available. I do not know how long it will take to get it but I shall try to do so. In the
January 22, 1968

meantime I cannot accept as valid some of the points which my hon. friend has raised.
He said that dubbing in French in films that have been made in the United States [DOT]constitutes a usurpation of the cultural air waves. Clearly, he would prefer to see films that were originally made in French. I take it he would like to see films that have been made in Belgium, France or other French speaking countries instead of films which have been made in the United States. He was not referring to Quebec films because few films have been made in Quebec which can be shown over the French television network. My hon. friend knows that even when Radio Canada makes films, such as the three which were made and shown in December and January, there is considerable outcry about their cost. It is not very likely, therefore, that enough full length feature films will be produced in Quebec to meet the demand of French network television stations for French speaking movies.
Indeed, French radio and television have been faced with problems and have received benefits. One of the problems has been that it has been difficult to obtain original material in the French language from outside Quebec. Accordingly, there has been considerable initiative to produce more films in Quebec in the French language. There has not been so much initiative in English speaking Canada to produce its material in this country because so much material is available at cheaper rates from the United Kingdom and the United States.
With respect to the suggestion that motion picture companies which own large blocks of shares in broadcasting networks may affect the programming of network stations by requiring them to carry company films instead of films made elsewhere, may I say that the private French stations are not affiliated in a network. I think my hon. friend knows that most English stations are in a network. I believe there is only one independent English station in Canada. Films are purchased by the network and used throughout the network, but the individual stations within the network may be individually owned and there is no relationship between them.
With respect to the C.B.C., of course, films are purchased by the C.B.C. and offered to its affiliates. I am not certain whether the case which my hon. friend has suggested is true for Quebec. It may be. Before I allow these allegations to stand I should like to know at this juncture whether the information he
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting seeks is readily available. I do not know whether it is. In any event, I do not think that the point is sufficiently important to delay the discussion of the bill. If my hon. friend does not think it is all that important perhaps, if we come to the appropriate clause before six o'clock, he might agree that we stand that clause and that I bring some report to the house at eight o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied with the answer of the hon. Secretary of State. If she tells us that she will do her best, I think we must believe her. Besides, if there are special points like these, we can come back to them on the motion for third reading or at some other stage.
I would only like to make a distinction between what the hon. Secretary of State has said and perhaps the actual situation of the French T.V. station. It is obvious that the C.B.C. is doing its best. Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate the French network of the C.B.C. for doing its very best to produce as many original programs in the French language as possible and to present French language motion pictures. I do not in the least blame C.B.C. employees. On the contrary, I think they should be congratulated for they succeed very well in presenting good programs. Since there is less material available in French than in English, the French network has a more difficult task.
But, for the private stations, the problem is different. I should like to mention at this point that my remarks concern the private television stations in Quebec rather than the C.B.C. which, I admit, is doing all it can. I am thinking mainly about private stations such as the one in Quebec city, for example. When a station belongs to Famous Players, an American company which produces American films, it is obvious that the company which owns this station prefers to show American films translated into French and then sell them to the Quebec stations rather than show films which would have a greater cultural value. It is obviously normal for an American company to try to show its pictures before others. But all this derives from the fact that an American company has been granted operating permits for the two television stations in Quebec city. I object against that Mr. Chairman. I understand quite well that the Famous Players company, which is a film producer, wishes to show its own pictures but then those pictures have been dubbed
5806	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and the station is not interested in showing original pictures, since their own pictures are American pictures dubbed in French.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Since the Secretary oi State recognizes the tact that our television and radio stations should belong to Quebecers and to Canadians,
I should not like to see any loopholes left in the act such as the word "should." If we recognize the merits of the argument advanced by saying "should," we have the responsibility to avoid all loopholes by saying: the stations shall or must be owned by Canadian residents and citizens.
That is why in my amendment, I said that the stations shall and not should be owned by Canadian citizens.
I should like to make a few remarks with regard to a comment made by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) on December 21, 1967, which I did not have the opportunity to rectify. As can be seen on page 5744 of Hansard for December 21, 1967, the minister said and I quote:
However, I know that some Quebecers should be interested in making profits, in having that station under their control, but I do not think that it is the responsibility of the government to decide which members of the company are going to make profits.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is not the responsibility of the government to decide who is going to make profits, but the question is: Who will make profits with a television station such as the one in Quebec which is very profitable, foreigners or Canadians? I do not want to know who will make profits as between Quebecers and Canadians, but I nevertheless think that it matters very much that such a television station be owned by Quebec or Canadian interests and that those profits go to Canadians or Quebeckers, not to foreigners who will impose their culture upon us.
On the other hand, during the same debate, and while I had not yet had the opportunity to make a correction, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) stated precisely what I quoted earlier and I repeat:
-he would have noticed that on channel 4, the programs broadcast are typical programs of Interest to Quebecers.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere should provide us with statistics in that respect.


Mr, Choquefie:: Does the hon. member want to provide statistics? How many American films and how many French films are shown on channel 4? Does the hon. member have statistics?

DEBATES	January 22, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that the member for Lotbiniere should ask this question.
Obviously, the owners of television station channel 4 in Quebec are not required to give out the information I seek. But if the member for Lotbiniere will join me, we could petition the Board of Broadcast Governors which could obtain a reply from the owners of channel 4, because channel 4 operates under a licence from the Board of Broadcast Governors, not from the member.


Mr. Choqueite:: I am asking whether you have any statistical data?


Gilles Grégoire: I repeat that I can hardly obtain statistics, because I am not the one who grants the licence. It is different when the C.B.C. is involved. The C.B.C. is a crown corporation and we can obtain replies from them; it is different with a private station. The request must be made through the bureau of broadcast governors.
I look at the Quebec television station on occasion and no one can call me that it is a typical Quebec station when according to what I have been able to see at least, we are more often given French translations of American films than original French films. We should get statistical data and that is why I am again putting a question to the Secretary of State to satisfy both the member for Lotbiniere and myself.
Could the Secretary of State ask the Board of Broadcast Governors to inquire into this matter in order to determine what programs are mere French translations of American programs and what programs are essentially French?
It would be most interesting to know from a cultural point of view. Now, the member for Lotbiniere cannot make assertions such as he made on December 21. Nor can I any longer make any and that is why I carefully avoided them. But since the station belongs to American interests, I think that we are then perfectly justified in asking the Board of Broadcast Governors to investigate this matter.


Auguste Choquette: May I add a word?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes. Certainly.
However, all I wish to add to what I have said to the hon. member for Lotbiniere-and I will certainly allow him to speak about that -is that he cannot make assertions about the
January 22, 1968

proportions nor can I, because we do not have the statistics.
Now, if the Secretary of State of Canada is agreeable, she can require the Board of Broadcast Governors to conduct an investigation on that matter in order to have definite statistics. Then we will be able to discuss them.
As the hon. member for Lotbiniere is anxious to raise the problem, I yield the floor immediately, but I may return to that subject, as it is one of my amendments.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
First of all, I want to point out to the previous speaker that unlike him, I am not making charges against channel 4. He claims that channel 4 is broadcasting American-inspired programs. He is the one who makes the charge and then he tells us that his allegation is not founded on any statistics. Therefore he is illogical, not me.
Personally-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member would allow me to make a correction. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere takes the trouble to read the official report tomorrow, he will notice that never at any time this afternoon or during the debate last month did I make any charges against channel 4.
I simply raised this matter: since that station is owned by Americans, is French culture in Quebec really protected? I was very careful to say that I did not have any accurate statistics and to ask that they be produced though.
But I did not accuse anyone. Moreover, I pointed out a statement of the hon. member for Lotbiniere who said:
"I note that especially on channel 4, the programs are typical of Quebec."
There are some, but are they a majority or a minority?
Now, the hon. member for Lotbiniere should read Hansard tomorrow and he will realize what I have just said.


Auguste Choquette: Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to carry on that discussion because I know that the minister would like to expedite the proceedings.
However, the hon. member mentioned the broadcasting of American pictures. But
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting although he made that suggestion, he is unable to give specific figures or statistics to support his assertions.
However, I am going to make a little suggestion to him. Should he care to go to the reading room, to take a look at L'Action or he Soleil of Quebec and see what programs are on channel 4, he will see that apart from dubbed films, films of French origin, essentially French productions are often shown. I myself can bear witness that films are shown which are essentially French productions; I have no statistics but I know it very well.
As far as the establishment of programs is concerned, it is very easy. The only thing the hon. member has to do is to take a look at he Soleil or L'Action, to look at the movie section. Indeed, on the first page, there is an index showing on what page he will find the list of television programs. The hon. member knows how to read and he will realize that the programs on channel 4 are essentially, basically Quebec ones. He knows that; it is useless to make believe that it could be otherwise.
Secondly, when the hon. member says that channel 4 is controlled by American interests, I unfortunately have to say, Mr. Chairman, that this does not correspond to the facts, because channels 4 and 5, which are two television stations, are largely controlled by Canadian interests.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Here is the breakdown: 50 per cent are Quebec interest and the member knows it. Mr. Gaston Pratte, a French Canadian is president.


Gilles Grégoire: He only has only one share out of 10,000.


Auguste Choquette: Granted, but he is the chairman of the board of directors.
The general manager of channel 4 in Quebec is Mr. Jean Pouliot, and it ill becomes the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to insinuate that Jean Pouliot might find it in his own interest to promote a culture other than the French culture; he is the son of Doctor Adrien Pouliot, former vice-president of the C.B.C., one of the pioneers of the French radio network out West. I will not be told, Mr. Chairman, that the Pouliots are opposed to the expansion of the French culture.


Gilles Grégoire: That is demagoguery!
5808	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Auguste Choquette: I say it is demagoguery on the part of the member to make such insinuations.
Here is the breakdown of the shares of channels 4 and 5: 50 per cent are held by Quebecers. The member himself said so on page 5740 of the Hansard for December 21: 50 per cent of the shares are Quebec-owned.
The other 50 per cent are held by Famous Players. Now, only half of the interests in Famous Players are American; therefore, 75 per cent of the interests in channels 4 and 5 are Canadian, and 25 per cent American.
I also want to point out to the hon. members that, in 1954, we Quebecers were happy to see TV stations inaugurated in the Quebec City. I should like to remind the member that at that time, few were interested in investing in television, that few believed in the eventual prosperity of a television station.
The hon. member knows very well that without the help of Famous Players, we would not at that time have had our television stations in Quebec city. Heaven knows how much television, and particularly the C.B.C., which after all is a federal agency, have helped to spread French culture. There are separatists who want to pull down everything, overthrow all federal institutions. However, French culture is flourishing in Quebec precisely because a federal agency, the C.B.C., has allowed it to flourish and develop more than ever.
Mr. Chairman, channels 4 and 5 are thus 75 per cent owned by Canadian interests, 50 per cent Quebec owned, 25 per cent Canadian owned in the general sense of the word, and 25 per cent American owned. The situation is explained by the fact that at the time when these television stations were opened, very few people were willing to invest in them because they believed it was too risky.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is well received when he applies to channel 4 to buy time; at least, the last I have heard is that, he is supposed to appear on that channel. Therefore, let nobody tell me that channel 4 is impervious to new ideas.
I admit that editorials can be acceptably oriented. They have a right to express their views. I admit that the hon. member has been ill-treated in some editorials on channel 4, because he was asked to resign when he declared himself a separatist. It was said on channel 4 that the hon. member had no right to become a separatist after securing a federal mandate from his electors. He could never

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
forgive channel 4 for asking him in an editorial to resign, go back before his electors and tell them: I am no longer a federalist but a separatist, what do you think of me? The hon. member will know at the next election what his electors think of him, and I should not want to be in his shoes, Mr. Chairman.
Therefore, I conclude these few remarks because I wanted to tease the hon. member a little. He will forgive me, because he knows how to tease also. But speaking objectively, the hon. member knows very well that channel 4 programs are basically and essentially Quebec ones. He knows very well that channels 4 and 5 are stations controlled by a great majority of Canadian interests. Therefore, his assertions must be refuted and that is why I thought it was my duty to correct his statements.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there are of course several points to be challenged in the statement just made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He says that I bear channel 4 in Quebec a grudge, and that is the very word he used, for having asked me to resign when I became a separatist.
If the hon. member for Lotbiniere will consult Hansard, he will see that I asked identical questions in 1963. Therefore, the statements of the hon. member for Lotbiniere are far from being true. Obviously, he is not aware of the efforts we have been making for some time to try to canadianize the means of developing our culture here in Quebec and to make them more truly representative of the province.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere shows that he does not understand much about business, when he says that it is 75 per cent Canadian and that Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited is 50 per cent Canadian, 50 per cent American.
According to the figures given, Americans own 900,390 shares of Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited out of a total of 1,737,072 shares, that is 51.834 per cent.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere should know that between 50 per cent and 51.8 per cent, that means control or no control. In owning 51.8 per cent of the shares, Americans have the complete control, and those who own 48.2 per cent do not have much to say. That is the difference between 50 per cent and 51.8 per cent. If it were 50-50 in round figures, in sonorous and flowery language, that would mean equal partners, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere said, but as soon as
January 22, 1968	COMMONS
one has 51 or 52 per cent, that means that he has the control. That is as clear as day. Whoever holds 50 per cent of the shares plus one has the last say. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to tell me that it is the one who holds 49.9 per cent of the shares, I will tell him then that he is wrong.


Auguste Choquette: I wish to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. It is estimated that 50 per cent of the shares of Famous Players are held by Quebecers but 50 per cent of the stations are Canadian. That makes 75 per cent. Now I ask the hon. member...


Gilles Grégoire: No, I refuse to accept what the hon. member is saying.


Auguste Choquette: . . . who is the administrator of the television station? Is it an agent from Paramount or a French Canadian from Quebec?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I refuse to accept what the hon. member has just said. It is all very well to utter high sounding sentences but let us keep our feet on the ground. It is not fifty-fifty in the case of Famous Players; it is 51.8 per cent American and 48.2 per cent Canadian. Therefore the Americans have the last say.
That is crystal-clear.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. It seems that we are now discussing remarks made by an hon. member to another hon. member. If we want to make any progress, we should come back to clause 2.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are considering clause 2 and my amendment which states that radio and television stations should be owned by Canadian citizens.
51.8 per cent of Famous Players is owned by Americans; therefore, they hold the majority of votes. If Paramount Pictures holds 51.8 per cent of the votes, Paramount Pictures have the upper hand in the company. Mr. Chairman, if there were in this house 133 liberal members against 132 members in the opposition, one could say that it is 50-50, but nothing would be approved, since there would be one member more on one side; that makes all the difference in the world.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The bill now under consideration is not a legislation stating how Famous Players is made up and to whom their shares belong, but it is a bill which specifies that funds for television stations must be mostly invested by
DEBATES	5809
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Canadians. I would ask the hon. members to come back to that clause.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it so happens
in the present case that Famous Players is the majority owner of both television stations in Quebec City and since the hon. member for Lotbiniere denies that foreigners are effectively the owners, I am trying to convince him-if it is finally possible to make him see the light-that in fact foreigners are owners of the television station in Quebec city.


Auguste Choquette: It is completely false.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: It is Famous Players who control the majority of the shares of*the Quebec station. The member for Lotbiniere means 50-50, but it is not so. It is 51.8 against 48.2 It is the same for a government; it has the majority when there are 133 members and not 132. It is only one unit short, but it makes all the difference in the world.


Auguste Choquette: I shall teach the member to count. It is 75 per cent and 25 per cent.


Gilles Grégoire: It makes all the difference in the world or else the member cannot count. Because Famous Players are entitled to 50 per cent of the votes-and even more, as we shall see later-it is the American interests being in the majority who make the decisions in the name of Famous Players at voting time.


Auguste Choquette: There has never been any American intervention.


Gilles Grégoire: It is clear that the majority American interests are the ones who decide through their vote on behalf of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this debate is dragging on unnecessarily. There has never been any American intervention on channel 4 or 5, and the hon. member has no right to insinuate such a thing. This debate should end here and now. The hon. member has made his point, so did I, and any further talk is useless. If he refuses to understand, there is nothing to be done. There never has been any American intervention on channel 4 or 5. Let it be known once and for all that the interests are in majority Canadian and the administrator is Mr. Jean Pouliot, a French Canadian from Quebec city.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The Chair has tried as far as possible to hear both
S810	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting members. We are not discussing the situation of the television stations in the province of Quebec or Quebec city, but discussing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe whereby subclause (b) of clause 2 would be amended by the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "should". I would suggest to the hon. member that he stay with the amendment he moved himself.


Gilles Grégoire: Of course, Mr. Chairman. But the rest of the amendment should be read also, because when you say that I want the word "should" replaced by "shall", the matter may not be very clear. The amended subclause would read as follows:
-that Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to preserve and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
It is not, then, the management of the station-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The amendment I have read is the amendment that has been written by the member himself. I have read it exactly as written by the member.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I read the clause when I introduced the amendment and I shall read it again:
-the Canadian broadcasting system must be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
There is no mention of administration and the administrator, Mr. Jean Pouliot of Quebec city. The member from Lotbiniere said a moment ago that I had something against Mr. Jean Pouliot, and I wondered where he got that impression. I have absolutely nothing against Mr. Pouliot. Far from it. I think he is a good fellow, a good Quebecker, and I have absolutely nothing against his father, who has done much in the setting up of French stations in Western Canada. I admit it, Mr. Chairman, and that was demagogy on the part of the hon. member for Lotbiniere to have me say that I had something against the father of the director who had shares or a few shares-hardly 5 per cent-in the television station. The hon. member for Lotbiniere may laugh. The hon. member for Lotbiniere would like the debate to end, precisely because he has no more arguments. Because he realizes that his arguments were false and erroneous, he would like that the debate to end.
Mr. Chairman, I say that television and radio stations should belong to Quebeckers.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	January 22, 1968
The Quebec station does not belong in majority to Quebeckers, and that is so true that the present cabinet recognized it when, in order to legalize the situation of Paramount Pictures, interests in western Quebec, it had to pass exceptive legislation and an order in council in 1965. I challenge the Secretary of State to say anything to the contrary. The Secretary of State can contradict the hon. member for Lotbiniere because she was a member of the cabinet of the present government when it became necessary to pass exceptive legislation through a special order in council to legalize the operations of the two private stations in Quebec city. Why was this necessary? Simply and only because they contravened the previous broadcasting act which stipulated that the majority stockholders in a private television station must be Canadian citizens. The Secretary of State knows that. In order to progress more rapidly, the Secretary of State has only to put the record straight and tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he is wrong; nothing more. I hope that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will admit at least that he is wrong since the cabinet, the Prime Minister, the then Secretary of State and the then Minister of Transport had to introduce and pass a special order in council in 1965 to legalize that situation.
I put the question on the order paper, and tonight at eight o'clock I will answer the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He will see then that an order in council was issued, not only for the private Quebec station, but for five private radio and television stations throughout Canada. Exceptive legislation was passed concerning five private stations, and the two private Quebec stations were among those five. A special order in council was issued because these stations did not conform to the law stipulating that these radio and television stations had to be Canadian-owned.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere should apologize and correct the mistake he made earlier. I realize that he cannot know everything. But that does not mean I accuse the directors of the two private Quebec stations. That is false.


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


Gilles Grégoire: If the hon. member is only asking questions, as he said earlier, to tease me, well I think that the house has no time to waste. If it is a serious question, that is fine,
January 22, 1968

but if it has to do with the father of somebody or the father of a producer on channel 4, I could not care less. Such things do not matter; only the principle is important.


Auguste Choquette: Could I ask the hon.
member a question? Does he know that I have been advised that channel 4 is controlled by Canadian interests and that its programs are truly representative of Quebec? Does the hon. member know that? If not, I will tell him so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere has some information which is not available to us, I would be pleased to obtain it. If, at the present time, channel 4 is owned by Canadian interests, I should be very happy. However, I have in hand the figures which were supplied to us by the hon. Secretary of State.
Secondly, the cabinet passed an order in council to legalize the situation of channel 4.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere says that the ownership is 50 per cent American and 50 per cent Canadian when the figures say this: 51.8 per cent American and 48.2 per cent Canadian. We say fifty-fifty in round figures: 133 Liberals, 132 Conservatives, 50-50 no prime minister. It is simple as that.
On the other hand, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere tells me that he knows that, that he has other statistics, I am prepared to resume my seat and to have him give us those figures. Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere have figures other than those we were given by the hon. Secretary of State? The hon. member for Lotbiniere has often put questions to me; I, in turn, ask him if he has figures other than those which were supplied to me by the hon. Secretary of State.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly unfair to discuss in this way. The hon. member admits himself that he cannot prove that there is American influence on channel 4. He quotes figures, and I have mine. I know clearly that 75 per cent of channel 4 belongs to Canadian interests. I know clearly that all the programs on channel 4 are Quebec programs. I would suggest to the hon. member that he take a walk on the Champs-Elysees in Paris; he would see that there are many theatres where American films translated into French are shown. This is not detrimental to French culture. Let the hon. member be serious once and for all and let him stop bringing charges indiscriminately. He has been repeating the same thing for about three hours.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.
I am sorry to interrupt the debate but the hon. member is out of order since the amendment before the committee at the present time says: "that the television stations shall be controlled by Canadians" but not necessarily the number of shares of each company.


Auguste Choquette: Could we now vote on the amendment?


Gilles Grégoire: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of shares, but of control, as it is said in the bill. I am satisfied with the legislation as it stands; as a matter of fact, clause 2 (b) which I seek to have amended, says here, in part:
the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians

There is no mention there of the number of shares, but it is stated that it should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, in a proportion of 52, 53 or 51 per cent. The moment Canadians have 51 per cent, they own, they control effectively.
I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you reminded us that the hon. member was out of order, because he would have drawn me in an altogether different field. You understand, I am sure, that when the hon. member for Lotbiniere talks about Mr. Adrien Pouliot who is responsible for the opening of French C.B.C. stations in the West, twenty-five years ago, I agree with him, but he leads me astray.
Therefore, I revert to my topic, hoping that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will not lead me further off the track.
I say it is fine, because it was provided for by the words "should be owned". But what happened is that the cabinet passed orders in council and exceptive measures to legalize the situation of television stations not owned and controlled effectively by Canadians. The Quebec station is one of those and is being operated under an order in council. The Secretary of State cannot deny it, because she is the one who gave that reply herself in answer to a question I put last fall. If the situation has changed, let the Secretary of State say so right now and I shall take her word for it, but that was the situation less than three months ago when that television station was being operated under an order in council. So I submit that instead of saying "should", which allows exceptive legislation and orders in council enabling Americans-in this case Famous Players-to control the Quebec station, we should say "shall"; it would then become
5812	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the law. What does "should" mean? It made possible all the exceptions we have had in the past and that is what we are trying to avoid. We do not want any exceptions. We want it to be as when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) took his responsibilities. At one time, he said that all chartered operating in Canada had to be owned by Canadian residents and citizens in a proportion of 75 per cent of the common shares and voting shares. He had the legislation enacted and did not write in it "should" but "shall" and there are no exceptions. He can grant them a delay to sell some of their shares. In the case of Famous Players, it does not mean that the directors would require to sell the whole television station; they could sell 2 or 3 per cent of the shares and it would solve the problem. It is as simple as that and that is what we are asking for. Perhaps the Secretary of State would be ready to accept that?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion between the two hon. members, particularly since the hon. member for Lapointe seems to be talking about ownership by Quebecois and not by Canadians. This is, of course, a considerably different issue and one with which the legislation does not deal at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. minister allow me to speak?

In my amendment, I did not suggest that the words "effectively controlled and owned by Canadians" should be changed. I did not alter those words. I merely asked that the word "should" replaced the word "must" and I did not ask at all that the word "Canadians" be deleted. As long as we are part of the Confederation, Mr. Chairman, and I have always said so, I will accept the standards of the country and I will consider myself a Canadian citizen. We are still members of the Confederation, that is true, but when we no longer belong to it, the word Quebecker will apply. I did not ask that the word be changed, I only asked the substitution of "must" for "should". I hope that the Secretary of State will accept it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am glad my hon. friend did not because he would have found himself in the minority, had he proposed that, not only in this chamber but probably in the

DEBATES	January 22. 1968
country. There was another piece of information for which my hon. friend asked which relates to the sheet of paper he has before him. I provided him with that some weeks ago and it relates to channels four and five in the city of Quebec. I do not have the opportunity to watch or listen to those channels but I have been told by my friend, the hon. member for Quebec East, that he has had the opportunity in the last 15 days to watch them almost nightly. Almost all of the programs to which he has listened have emanated from a European country, not from either Canada or the United States. These are obviously not programs which were manufactured or owned by the Famous Players Corporation of the United States.
The other information asked for by the hon. member is in respect of other Quebec radio and television stations. I must confess at once to a very serious lapse. I did not remember where I had obtained the information which I provided my hon. friend and which has formed the basis of the stimulating conversation of the last hour and the basis of the stimulating but perhaps not so acceptable charges against the operators of Quebec radio and television stations.
The hon. member wanted me to spend the period from six to eight o'clock industriously calling upon members of the B.B.G. to scurry down to the office and dig up information for me to produce at eight o'clock in order that the debate would not be held up. He suggested alternatively that the debate be held up until some time tomorrow so I could produce this information. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not do that this evening between six and eight but instead advise him, and I appreciate that advice from a woman is never well received, particularly when publicly given, to go to the returns branch and ask for the return to the motion for the production of papers No. 122, which was tabled in the House of Commons on May 4, 1966 by the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill. I am sure the hon. member will find that the sheet he has before him is one of the sheets of that particular tabled document and all the other sheets, which have been a matter of public knowledge now for almost two years by virtue of being in the public annals of the house, will be laid bare before his eyes and when we return at eight o'clock he will have enough further material for another hour's speech. May I call it six o'clock?
January 22, 1968


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may consider 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 New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Unemployment Insurance-inquiry as to inclusion of hospital employees; the hon. member for Carleton <Mr. Bell), Public Service-pensions of retired civil servants-request for reconsideration of increase refusal; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-pensions of retired civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the wish of the government, or at least of the President of the Treasury Board, that the second and third questions which Your Honour has read out be held over until tomorrow night. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton would join with me in acceding to that request if I have stated it accurately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that questions two and three on today's list be deferred until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand also that there is a disposition on the part of hon. members to dispense with private members' hour today. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting The Chairman: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. House again in committee on Bill No. C-163, an act to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada.
On clause 2-Broadcasting Policy for Canada.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, as we rose at six o'clock a number of questions were put by the hon. member for Lapointe and, I suppose, a challenge was hurled at me to support the position taken by the hon. member for Lapointe with respect to the television stations CFCM-TV and CKMI-TV in Quebec city. It is not my function to support private broadcasting stations. Indeed, as all hon. members know, my function is to report to parliament on broadcasting in general. Normally I am not expected to take up the cudgels for any station, whether it be private or public. However, because of a number of things which were said by the hon. member for Lapointe in December, and again now, I did check on some information which I had received as a result of his earlier speech. I have to inform the house of these facts which, to the best of my knowledge and information, are correct and which are vouched for by Mr. Pouliot, the manager of that station who is a good Canadian. I am told that these two stations which are owned and operated by a Canadian company, namely Television-Quebec-Canada Ltee, are not owned in any way by United States subjects.
I am informed that not one share of that company is owned by a United States subject. In fact, my information is that 50 per cent of the shares of Television de Quebec are owned by Quebec companies or individuals, and these Quebeckers are still, and proudly so, Canadians, whether they be corporate or private. The other 50 per cent of the corporation is owned by Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited which I am told is a Canadian company incorporated under the laws of Canada. Of its shares, 51 per cent are owned by United States subjects or companies, but that is of course not 51 per cent with respect to Television de Quebec.
January 22, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Furthermore, my information is that when in 1954 a licence was granted for CFCM-TV it was under the express condition that control of the company would not fall into the hands of Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited. I am informed that the structure of Television de Quebec is such that Famous Players cannot have more than 50 per cent of the shares, and effective control is and must remain in the hands of Quebeckers. The president of Television de Quebec is a Canadian and a Quebecker, and so is the managing director. I am further informed that the managing director has the final say in matters of management, including approval of editorial matters.
I do not propose to interpose myself between the hon. member for Lapointe and Television de Quebec in what appears to be a strenuous difference of opinion over editorial content of that television station's program. I am informed that the public affairs programming has been many times under scrutiny by the B.B.G. and has been commended as being particularly Canadian.
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. It may be because Television de Quebec is in the heart of a province which my hon. friend seeks to take out of the confederation of Canada, that he has lodged his complaint. But if my information is correct-and I would not place it before the house if I did not have every reason to believe it was correct-then I think that the hon. member should not attempt to mislead members of the house by indicating that this corporation and these stations are in any way under United States control.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well said.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased with the explanations given to us by the hon. Secretary of State, except that when she refers to the policy followed by the private Quebec television stations in their programming, their editorials, or this or that orientation I must tell the hon. Secretary of State, that I did not introduce this matter in the conversation. The one who slipped the subject of the policies, or ideologies or editorials of the Quebec television stations, into our debate is the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who threw into that debate an allusion to an editorial that the


Quebec television station has reportedly written against me and which I have never heard of and never seen and which has quite failed to impress me.
Therefore, the hon. Secretary of State should not raise this argument: I did not raise the problem of the political ideology of the Quebec television station. It was raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I should also correct the impression some people may have got, of whom, Mr. Adrien Pouliot, father of the general manager. I never introduced that into the debate. Because I speak of channel 4 in Quebec city, all of a sudden, the hon. member for Lotbiniere rises and intervenes saying: You don't speak against channel 4 in Quebec city, because its manager is Mr. Jean Pouliot, son of Mr. Adrien Pouliot who, years ago, contributed to the setting up of C.B.C. French stations out west.
I am not the one who introduced that in the debate. I have nothing against Mr. Adrien Pouliot; far from it, for I know him very well, perhaps even better than the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I have often met him. I have eaten with him and I admire him very much; he has contributed tremendously to French radio out west. But why bring this up? Why take the Quebec station to task? The general manager is the son of Mr. Adrien Pouliot who 15 years ago was a member of the Board of Governors of the C.B.C. I do not know who is the grandfather of the second cameraman of channel 4 in Quebec but it does not matter.
The Secretary of State mentions the editorials of the Quebec station. I have never mentioned them. I am not the one who brought this up in discussion, it was the member for Lotbiniere. I am not at all concerned with the editorials of the Quebec station. They are entitled to their opinions, it is freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. That I believe in, and I would not blame them for this.
Now when the Secretary of State tells me that the whole editorial policy is under the president of the Quebec station, she is saying that the president runs everything. But the president, Mr. Gaston Pratte, owns one out of 10,000 shares. Possibly, it is the vice-president Mr. J. J. Fitzgibbons, but he has also one share out of 10,000. Now, as far as the treasurer is concerned, Mr. Boldstad-I do not know where he comes from-but he owns only one share out of 10,000. It may be the secretary, Mr. Henri Lepage-whom I know
*January 22, 1968

too as a very good guy. I have nothing against him as secretary of the company-but he too, owns only one share out of 10,000.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend permit a question? I apologize for asking it in English. Does my hon. friend recall the debate on December 20 last to which he made a very valuable contribution, beginning at page 5679 of Hansard, and does he remember saying this, as reported at the bottom of page 5680:
In Quebec, the only two private television stations are owned by American subjects. The result is that those two television stations present regularly news commentaries, three times a day on the French station and three times a day on the English station, and they are identical commentaries, translated back into English, since those two stations are owned by the same American company. When comments are made on a decision taken by the federal government or by the Quebec government or by a municipality, it is always the American point of view which is put forward during the news commentaries of those two Quebec stations, either the English or the French station. It is always the American point of view on, or reaction to, the events occurring in Canada and Quebeckers, as a result, are overwhelmed by American reactions.


Auguste Choquette: That's a shame.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this is precisely what I said because I submit that, according to the statistics provided by the Secretary of State, according to the order in council passed in 1965, the two private television stations in Quebec belong to American interests.
The Secretary of State claims that is not the case. So I would ask her why did the cabinet, the 25 ministers and the Prime Minister, and everybody, pass an order in council in 1965 making it legal through exceptive legislation to operate two private television stations in Quebec contrary to legislation providing that a majority of shares in a Canadian television station had to be in the hands of Canadian citizens. If the majority of shares were owned by Canadians, why did the cabinet bother to pass an order in council to make the situation legal and in accordance with the act?
That is the answer the Secretary of State gave me in October or November 1967, in reply to a question I had placed on the order paper. If things have changed in the last two or three months, let the Secretary of State tell me and I shall sit down. But we have not been notified of any changes, the order in
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting council has not been rescinded and so far the two Quebec private stations are still in operation under that order in council. Has the minister been bothered for nothing or what? Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell me what the situation is concerning that order in council?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer my hon. friend. He said that he did not deal with editorials and was not concerned with them. I ask him if he also remembers this passage, which is to be found on page 5680, the right-hand column, the same date, December 20. The hon. member said:
There is a young squirt who reads these editorials, possibly with some assurance, but everyone knows that he is not writing them;-


Gilles Grégoire: What page is that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Page 5680.


Gilles Grégoire: Which column?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The right-hand column.
There is a young squirt who reads these editorials-
The hon. member is there referring to editorials which are prepared according to United States ideas and reactions of stations belonging to United States citizens.
-possibly with some assurance, but everyone knows that he is not writing them; nevertheless, they are regularly given over the Quebec television, either on the French station or on the English station.
Then my hon. friend goes on to indicate that he believes the former legislation, which must be the 1958 legislation, stated that television and radio stations in Canada "should belong to Canadians." Today my hon. friend has been talking about 50 per cent ownership. I would refer my hon. friend to the provisions of the 1958 act and particularly to section 14 (1) which required, and at the moment still does, licencees to have 75 per cent Canadian shareholders. The 1958 act provides under section 14 (2) for an exemption if there is less than 75 per cent.
Accordingly, these stations were granted the exemption under section 14 (2). But that does not mean-and my hon. friend has been using the word "majority", or at least that is the word the translators have been using -that more than 50 per cent is owned even by a United States corporation, much less that the ownership is comprised completely of
January 22, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting United States citizens. I think my hon. friend has perhaps been misled by a too careless reading of the legislation or perhaps by an understanding of it without actually checking the language. It seems clear that in the 1958 act the requirement was that at least 75 per cent be Canadian unless there be an exemption. This not being the case here, there being only 50 per cent Canadian and 50 per cent United States, it appears that management decisions are made for Canadians by Canadians, and in this case there was an exemption.
I am sure my hon. friend would want the record to be set straight because I have noticed in the years I have been in the house that he is a man of very generous propensities and would want to be very fair to a corporation that has no other way than this of making its voice heard on the floor of the house.


Mr. Lamberl:: You are very generous.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything the Secretary of State has just said. What I have been trying to explain from the beginning, however, is that the present act can be very easily evaded. I put a question on the order paper last September asking how television stations were exempted by order in council from complying with section 14(1) just mentioned by the minister. She answered then that five television stations were exempted, including two in Quebec. Under the former act, television stations had to be owned by a clear majority of Canadian citizens. Why? Because wave lengths are public property and their number is restricted. It is not like a newspaper. When someone wants to found a newspaper, all he needs is sufficient funds to do so. But things are different when it comes to a T.Y. station. He may not operate a station unless some wave length is available and there are none left.
Let us now revert to clause 14 (1) of the former act which stipulated that 75 per cent of the shares were to be Canadian-owned while subclause (2) of the same clause mentioned that the owner of a T.V. station might be exempted from that requirement by order in council. The new act changes all that, as subclause (b) of clause 2 reads as follows:
b) the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to preserve ...
It says "should be effectively controlled". Now, effective control means that 51 or 52 per cent of the shares are in the hands of Canadian citizens. That means therefore, less than in

the former legislation which set the figure at 75 per cent, unless otherwise provided by order-in-council. The new legislation says "effectively controlled" but does not even mention the figure of 75 per cent any longer. The previous legislation imposed a percentage but the cabinet could turn around and favour American companies at any time. The new legislation requires only effective control that is 51 or 52 per cent but it does not even quite require that since it says "should be owned". My amendment seeks to modify the act so that it would read:
-That the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.
This amendment would prevent the cabinet from eluding the act as it used to do formerly and as the new legislation would still allow it to do. The new act gives even more leeway to American companies which would like to take over our television and radio stations. The 75 per cent limit is lifted. Further, the compulsory feature is removed by using the word "should" which should be replaced by "shall". The Secretary of State objects although the previous legislation said 75 per cent. The new legislation lowers the standards to an effective control which means only 51 per cent and even then, the minister does not want to be too strict since the term "should" is used. There is the Quebec television station which not only did not meet the provisions of subsection (1) of clause 141 of the previous legislation but was operating under an order in council. However, the Secretary of State says that the Quebec television station is owned by a Canadian company incorporated in Canada. It is true that the chairman is a French Canadian, a Quebecker, but he owns only one out of 10,000 shares. 50 per cent of the shares belong to Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd. It has been pointed out that the company is Canadian, but nevertheless, American interests hold 51.8 per cent of the shares of Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd. It is true that the said company is incorporated in Canada, and that the word Canada appears in its trade name, but it is controlled by American interests and the Secretary of State is aware of the fact. That company holds 50 per cent of shares of two private television stations of Quebec city and this is why I object because I would like us to have the effective control as required in the legislation and I quote:
The Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
January 22, 1968
If the Americans own 50 per cent of the shares, Canadians have no effective control, that is clear. I suggest we substitute to the words "should be controlled" the words "shall be controlled."
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, airwaves are publicly owned. Wave lengths are not only limited, they are scarce. Anyone wanting to start a new television station in Quebec could not do so because there are no free wave lengths. If there are only two wave lengths available, let us not turn 50 per cent of them to the Americans but rather let us keep them for Canadians and I close by quoting the last two lines of this paragraph (b):
-and effectively controlled by Canadians so as to preserve and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada-
Do we want to enrich and strengthen it or not? It is said that effective control by Canadians is necessary to strengthen and enrich it yet effective control is given to the Americans. It is nonsensical, contradictory, and Canada and the present government have complained of this nonsense and these contradictions in the legislation and the facts.
Between the act and the facts, there are always good intentions but good intentions which are not reflected in reality. Now, when the Secretary of State, with all her charm and competence, tells us: Well, in order to preserve, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada, and I now quote clause 2:
It is hereby declared that
b) the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians ...
"Should" implies no compulsion; indeed not. Therefore, the wording is at variance with the facts and the facts are inconsistent with the wording. The words reflect the good intentions, the facts are always contrary to the words.
When we tell her: Do you really insist on that, do you stick to your opinion, to your objectives? Then, make the necessary decisions. That is all. But, they are afraid to make them.
It is just a matter of saying "shall" instead of "should", which is a mere statement of good intentions. Good intentions: hell is full of or paved with good intentions. In Quebec City there are two private TV stations and they are not effectively controlled by Canadians since 50 per cent of the interests are American. That is why the word "shall" should be substituted to "should".
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Why not? It must be like that? Indeed, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) introduced his bill, he did not say: The chartered banks should belong to Canadian interests in a proportion of 75 per cent. He said: This is how it shall be. It must be like this. It shall be like this. And his law was passed. The Minister of Finance had made up his mind. He did not say: It should. He said: It shall, it will be so. When the Americans decided to buy the Mercantile Bank, they did so. Later the minister came along with his act. He said: No. Chartered banks must belong in a proportion of 75 per cent to Canadian citizens. This should be the case and it is.
The Secretary of State, in the field of culture, uses the word "should". But, Mr. Chairman, why does the Secretary of State hesitate?


Albert Béchard: The fact of the matter is that such is the case.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State says: Such is the case. Well, if so, let him put in the proper word. Why hesitate? But no, they do not want to add this word because they know full well that it is not so. And so, the word "should" is left in.
Continue to use "should"; keep your "should". It should be this, it should be that. But nobody does anything about it. Nobody moves. Let them continue like that, Mr. Chairman, and everything will be in a fine pickle, I can assure you.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, give me thirty seconds.
I live in the city of Quebec, and I cannot allow such things to be said because they are completely false and prejudicial to an enterprise controlled by a French Canadian and managed by a French Canadian. In fact, I would be remiss in allowing assertions as misleading and as contrary to the facts as those.
I ask the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to show a certain sense of responsibility. No citizen, Mr. Chairman, would dare to deny that channel 4 is not essentially a Quebec and a French-Canadian station. The remarks repeated twenty times at least by the hon. member are unacceptable. He made his first speech on December 20 and repeated it the next day. Now, this afternoon, he repeated the same thing at least five times. Mr. Chairman, a provision of the standing orders

5818	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting prohibits constant repetition, and it should be applied so that the hon. member be prevented from continuing his series of insults towards an enterprise managed by a French Canadian who is a credit to us.
The Secretary of State quoted some very interesting excerpts where the hon. member was making charges against channel 4. As reported at page 5741 of Hansard for December 21, 1967, he said:
We, in Quebec, would like to see an end to Americans ingrafting their ideas into our heads.
Mr. Chairman, an allegedly responsible member should be ashamed to make such serious charges, so detrimental to that institution, channel 4, which gives satisfaction to all the people of Quebec city. I will not stand for anything more in the same vein from the hon. member. I say again that channels 4 and 5 are controlled by Canadian interests. I say again that channel 4 in its editorial, its films and its programs in general, is truly a Quebec station and I say again that the general manager of channel 4, Mr. Jean Pouliot, is a serious and competent man, such more concerned than the hon. member about promoting French culture. He is much more responsible than the hon. member for Lapointe.
If the hon. member is honest, he will withdraw the charges he has laid. If he is serious, let him convene the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts and Mr. Jean Pouliot will testify. Let him convene the committee on privileges and elections, we will see who is right. In my opinion, the hon. member for Lapointe is decidedly in the wrong and I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to vote on the motion introduced by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall continue afterwards.

Mr Wahn: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the wording of subclause (g) and also subclause (h) of clause 2 of the bill now before us, and if it is in order I should like to direct my remarks to these subclauses rather than to the amendment which I believe has been moved by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I am concerned about subclause (g) because...
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
I realise that the hon. member would like to go on to paragraph (h) or (j), but there is an amendment before the committee concerning paragraph (b) of the act. Are we discussing the amendment to paragraph (b) which I have introduced? If so, I would ask that we deal with this amendment first, and then go on to paragraph (j) or (i) as the hon. member wishes. I think that according to the rules, Mr. Chairman, we should deal with my amendment.


Robert William Prittie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could the Chair give us some guidance. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe deals with clause 2 (b) We have not yet passed 2 (a), and there will be other amendments which will affect the various subclauses of clause 2. I wish to know if we are to pass each subclause in order; or are we dealing with the whole of clause 2 at the one time?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The only question the Chair has before it at the moment is clause 2 of this bill. If the committee wishes to discuss clause 2 under its different subheadings, that is a decision which the committee must make. But there is only one question before the Chair at the moment, and that is with respect to clause 2.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the heart of the whole bill. There have been differences of opinion about clause 2 in the standing committee and in this committee of the whole. It seems to me that it might meet the wishes of all members of the committee, and enable the committee to deal with the matter expeditiously, if we were to deal with each subclause seriatim. We have spent considerable time discussing general topics. We spent some time on that just over a month ago, as well as today. Some of the subclauses are wide enough in scope to permit hon, members to make general speeches, should any hon. member wish to make a general speech at some later point. I suggest, nevertheless, that it would sharpen the debate if Your Honour would see fit to put the question, in order that hon. members may decide whether they wish to deal with the subclauses one after another. Then, we may have some resolution of the matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with the
greatest respect, I do not think the committee has any choice in how to proceed. If Your Honour consults the authorities Your Honour
January 22, 1968

will find that it is impossible to deal with a clause which is composed of a number of subclauses in any way, shall we say, that is higgledy-piggledy. The subclauses must be passed seriatim. For instance, the committee might pass subclause (d), having stood subclauses (a) and (b), only to have someone come along and move an amendment to subclauses (a) or (b), which amendment would make nonsense of (d). Yet the committee would have accepted (d), and it would be necessary to backtrack. Now that we have had the general debate, we must deal with the subclauses seriatim.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If it is the wish of the committee to proceed with clause 2, and I presume we are talking only about clause 2, that is quite agreeable to the Chair. Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, part 1, clause 2 carries the subtitle "Broadcasting Policy for Canada". As the Secretary of State has remarked, this clause is the heart of the whole bill. I believe, until the members of this house have had an opportunity to express themselves on behalf of the whole bill that we should deal with and discuss these clauses seriatim. We should do that until the house has heard the opinion of its various members on the heart of the whole bill. That is, there should be general discussion on clause 2, which is labelled "Broadcasting Policy for Canada".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I agree with that entirely. I am sure that no member of the committee wishes to stifle the debate which has already been pretty far ranging. If no one else has a contribution to the general discussion, perhaps we might hear from the hon. member for York-Humber. I always listen with interest and with a great deal of patience to his speeches. I have always considered his speeches brilliant. I do not always agree with him, but I find him well worth listening to. I have not heard of any other hon. member wishing to make a general contribution. I should be happy if we could conclude the general remarks. Perhaps we could deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe when we reach clause 2 (b).


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Are we not to have a speech by the hon. member for York-Humber?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to deal with the subclauses of clause 2 seriatim or does the committee wish to proceed further with the general debate?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Give us a speech.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am prepared to yield the floor to the hon. member for St. Paul's, who was speaking a moment or two ago.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He was speaking on the amendment.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I must make a correction. Contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, this is not an appropriate occasion to indulge, to allow oneself to indulge in personalities. I wish to repeat that I do not criticize the manager of the Quebec television station, Mr. Jean Pouliot: The fact that he is a good Quebecer is irrelevant. I admit that he is a very good manager and that his father did a lot for the promotion of French radio in western Canada. I wonder why the hon. member for Lotbiniere is trying so hard to make of that issue a matter of personalities. I must repeat that, I am not raising objections because Mr. Jean Pouliot is manager of the Quebec station, far from it, since I think highly of the general manager of the Quebec television station. I am not accusing the Quebec station either. It is simply that the hon. member for Lotbiniere did not understand at all the objection I have raised. Mr. Chairman, my objection is of a general character. The situation prevailing in the case of the two Quebec stations also applies to the three other Canadian stations. The situation of the other three stations-all located in Ontario, I believe-is not more logical and normal than that of the two in Quebec. I say once again, in spite of the unproved assertions of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, that according to the figures provided by the Secretary of State which have not been denied or contradicted, the two Quebec stations are not effectively controlled by Canadians, but by Americans. That is why I protest.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not normally interfere with hon. member's speeches but I thought that the committee of the whole had just decided that we should deal with general matters, and
5820	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting leave specifics to when we discuss the subclauses. It seems to me that my hon. friend is dealing again with his amendment to 2 (b) and, therefore, he should not be heard at this time. The committee is prepared to hear others on general matters.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. May I point out to the committee that the question before the Chair is the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With respect, it is out of order. While the Chair may have accepted it, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect I say that it is out of order to put that amendment at this time. Surely we should deal with the general debate and then with subclauses (a) and (b).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe in the stand he takes. The difficulty of the Chair is this. The standing orders say that there may be a general debate on clause 2 when clause 1 is a short clause, or where the name of the bill itself is clause 1. On the other hand, it is possible for hon. members, under clause 2, to discuss the items in it, if they wish to do that. It is not for the Chair to decide that the committee must follow the discussion according to the order in which the clauses are written out. That is for the committee to decide.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The committee has decided.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the committee decides that it wishes to do the work on clause 2 in that way, I shall be happy to co-operate; but I should like the committee to instruct me. e (8:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I agree to delay my remarks on my amendment to allow for the general debate on clause 2 and to enable my friend, the hon. member for York Humber (Mr. Cowan), to make his comments on clause 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there does appear to be a disposition in the house to enter upon a general discussion first-as though we have not had enough already-and then consider the subclauses seriatim, may I suggest to Your Honour that you call clause 2 (a)? Then, if anyone still wishes to discuss the measure in general terms, let him do so. If Yoqr Hon-

DEBATES	January 22, 19S8
our would call clause 2 (a) we could pass it, and then you could call clause 2 (b); the hon. member for Lapointe could make his amendment and we could go on to the various subclauses of clause 2.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
York-Humber.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I did not plan to speak this evening, but this situation having arisen I should like to make some comments which go to the heart of this broadcasting bill No. C-163. I think they should be part of a general discussion on clause 2 and not be directed to individual clauses or subclauses.
I spoke on this bill on December 21 just prior to the adjournment for the Christmas recess. I believe I made myself clear with regard to my opposition to a determination expressed by the cabinet in this bill that community antenna television stations should come under the control of the new radio and television council which it is proposed to establish to replace the Board of Broadcast Governors. My time expired before I was able to complete some remarks I had prepared with regard to the action of the Board of Broadcast Governors in the year ending March 31, 1967, in refusing the applications of seven firms or individuals for CATV licences in Canada.
My observations at that time are to be found reported in Hansard for December 21. I was commenting in some detail on a letter dated December 13 which I had received from the Secretary of State. As I said on December 21, I had been pressing the Minister of Transport as well as the Secretary of State for a detailed explanation as to why seven applications for CATV licences had been turned down in Canada in the year ending March 31, 1967. It may interest members of the committee to know that under date of December 13 I received a very informative letter from the Secretary of State, a member of the cabinet for whom I have nothing but the highest regard and who in my opinion is a true Liberal. I have read extensively from her letter and intend to read from it again this evening. But I think members of this committee will be interested to learn that I also received a letter from the Minister of Transport dated December 20 and postmarked December 22, the day after the house rose. It may have been held up for signature or it may have been delayed in the Christmas mail. The interesting thing is this: the Secretary of State in her letter gives reasons for
January 22, 1968

the action of the board in turning down seven CATV applications, but the Minister of Transport within whose jurisdiction the applications fell, and who is really responsible for handling them, advances no such information.
There is not a single reason given in the letter from the Minister of Transport dated December 20, whereas the letter from the Secretary of State dated December 13 is full, explicit and informative as to the reasons for turning down these applications. As I explained on December 21, some of the reasons given for the refusal to grant CATV licence applications are such as those given in the cases of David R. Graham of Ottawa and Murray L. Sweigman of Toronto who applied for the establishment of a new CATV system at Pembroke, Ontario. The Secretary of State writes that these were rejected on grounds that if granted they would adversely affect the economic position of the existing television station in the community.
Speaking on December 21 I asked the house: since when has it become the policy of this parliament to guarantee financial success to a T.V. licencee? We are told by the Department of Consumer Affairs that the free play of the marketplace will maintain prices at a just level for all the people of Canada, that the free play of the marketplace will accomplish this miracle in a world of rising prices.
I have referred on more than one occasion to the monopolies granted by the cabinet in various fields of endeavour, such as taxicab monopolies at airports. Now we have this glaring example of protection extended to television stations in Canada, even to the extent of making it clear on stationery of the Secretary of State that applications for CATV licences have been refused because to grant them would adversely affect the economic position of T.V. stations in the community concerned. This is the reply given in a number of cases where CATV applications have been refused. But take the letter from the Minister of Transport which also refers to the seven applications which were refused-I will read what it said about the whole seven if anyone asks me to do so, but two or three examples will be enough to illustrate the way in which the seven refusals are reported in this letter. Here is one paragraph;
An application dated February 14, 1986, submitted by Mr. David R. Graham, Ottawa, Ontario for authority to establish a new CATV system at Pembroke, Ontario. Pembroke is located within the Grade "B" contour of Station CHOV-TV, Pembroke, Ontario.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
This is some explanation. Pembroke is located in the Grade "B" contour of Station CHOV-TV, Pembroke, Ontario. Period. Now consider the informative reply from the Secretary of State in which she wrote:
Two applications-one by David R. Graham of Ottawa and the other by Murray L. Sweigman of Toronto-for the establishment of a new CATV system at Pembroke, Ontario, were rejected on grounds they would adversely affect the economic position of the existing T.V. station in that community.
But no explanation from the Minister of Transport, despite the fact that the Secretary of State honestly and correctly reported the reasons advanced by the Board of Broadcast Governors for refusing applications from those two gentlemen to establish business in Pembroke.
I pointed out on December 21 that CATV licence has in fact been issued since March 31, 1967 to another applicant for a licence in Pembroke. I am told today by my hon. friend from Renfrew North that some households are already receiving CATV service in Pembroke and that in a few weeks time installations will have been completed to serve all applicants there.
It is interesting to note that the Board of Broadcast Governors turned down two applications for a service in Pembroke in the year ending March 31, 1967 on the ground that if granted they would adversely affect the economic position of the existing T.V. station in that community, when we now learn that CATV installation is actually being made in Pembroke. Does this mean it will not adversely affect the economic position of the existing station in that community?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Now, the fact of the matter is that the CATV installation in Pembroke allows the residents of that city to bring in three stations from Ottawa, in addition to the one local station from Pembroke. I am told that the residents of Pembroke are extremely happy with their greater selection of stations through the use of CATV than was possible when they were hogtied by the Board of Broadcast Governors to view the one television station in Pembroke.
I also referred on December 21 to the reply from the Secretary of State regarding three applications from Mr. John Albulet of Ottawa for CATV systems at Prescott, Gananoque and Napanee, which were turned down on the ground that they would inhibit the provision of alternate television service in that general
gg22	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting region. It is interesting, as I commented on December 21, that the white paper on broadcasting and the report from the committee on broadcasting, films and the arts, is suggesting as a policy of this parliament that where there is a private television station in existence the second station to go into a community should be a C.B.C. station, or if there is a city with one C.B.C. station the second station should be a privately owned station. Now, in Kingston there is a privately owned station, and it is giving fine service for that area.
So, when Mr. John Albulet of Ottawa applied for CATV systems at Prescott, Gano-noque and Napanee, which would allow the residents of those areas to bring in a C.B.C. station such as Ottawa, and United States stations, we are advised by the Secretary of State, who I presume receives her information from the Board of Broadcast Governors, that the applications were turned down on the grounds that they would inhibit alternate service in that general region. As I pointed out on December 21, if there is going to be a second television station at Kingston then the parliament of Canada, if it adopts the white paper in toto and the report of the broadcasting committee, will be giving the open sesame to the cabinet to establish a C.B.C. station in Kingston. But we don't need to project the financial aspects of the C.B.C. because they pay no attention to the revenues which can be received from the areas in which they operate. They simply telephone to the cabinet for more money and it goes out to them in a wheel barrow.
We are told that the applications of Mr. John Albulet have been turned down because if granted they would inhibit the provision of alternate television service in that general region, but we know the alternate television service is going to the C.B.C. Let me read the reply from the Minister of Transport on these applications:
An application dated February 23, 1966, submitted by Mr. John Albulet, Ottawa, Ontario, for authority to establish a new CATV system at Prescott, Ontario. Prescott is located within the Grade "B" contours of stations CJOH-TV, Ottawa, Ontario and CKWS-TV, Kingston, Ontarioperiod.
This is the explanation as to why there is no CATV station allowed in the Prescott area, because it would be within the Grade "B" contours of CJOH-TV Ottawa and CKWS-TV, Kingston.

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
This is the reply with regard to the second application:
An application dated March 30, 1966 submitted by Mr. John Albulet, Ottawa, Ontario, for authority to establish a new CATV system at Ganonoque, Ontario. Ganonoque is located within the Grade "B" contour of station CKWS-TV, Kingston, Ontarioperiod.
The third application of Mr. John Albulet gets the same treatment:
An application dated November 12, 1966, submitted by Mr. John Albulet, Ottawa, Ontario, for authority to establish a new CATV system at Napanee, Ontario. Napanee is located within the Grade "B" contour of station CKWS-TV, Kingston, Ontarioperiod.
Now, despite the fact some viewers within the Grade "B" contour areas for established C.B.C. stations and for station CKWS want a wider selection of programs, the Board of Broadcast Governors recommends that the CATV applications should not be granted, and the viewers are thus denied the right of selection of programs. I can only repeat what I said on December 21, that this is giving a monopoly position to television station operators.
I cannot see any reason why the Canadian cabinet should endeavour to ensure that there is a financial profit on every television licence granted. If the cabinet is going to assure every television station operator that he will operate at a profit then Lord Thomson of Fleet, Canadian born and a magnificent example of Canadian enterprise, is right when he says a television licence is the same as a licence to print money. Why cannot free play in the market affect operators of television stations the same as it affects all other people in what some members of the cabinet call a free enterprise system, a free economy country, but which we know, from the monopolies that the cabinet grants in various areas, is not a 100 per cent free enterprise system?
I also spoke on December 21 with regard to a CATV application for a licence at Clermont, near Quebec city. This was a television licence application turned down informally by the Board of Broadcast Governors when the application was referred to them by the Department of Transport. I pointed out that Clermont is about 85 miles east of Quebec city and about 45 miles north of Riviere-du-Loup.
I made extensive inquiries in regard to that application, and I know my informants were
January 22, 1968

"radio apparatus" means a reasonably complete and sufficient combination of distinct radio appliances intended for or capable of being used for radioelectric communication, whether by transmission or reception or both;
Then in (j) we find the words:
-"radio station", and the same expression when abbreviated as "station", means a station, other than a private receiving station, equipped with transmitting or receiving radio apparatus or both and intended for, or capable of being used for, any form of radioelectric communication, whether by transmission or reception or both, and includes a commercial broadcasting receiving station;
It is interesting that in the explanatory notes, which are not part of the bill, reference is made to a receiving radio apparatus which is intended for radioelectric communication whether by transmission or reception. Now, a CATV station can only receive; it does not originate. If it is perfectly legal for an individual on his own private antenna to receive a program, why should it be necessary to have a licence granted by the B.B.G.
January 22, 1968

if a group of people decide to have a more effective antenna erected in order to bring in more programs than can be received on a single antenna on a home or by using rabbit ears?
I maintain that it is absolutely ridiculous for a cabinet that considers itself Liberal to take this step to limit the freedom of the individual to look at the programs he wishes to look at in the same way that it would be ridiculous for the cabinet to make a law telling us what material we can read. No one is going to interfere with the freedom of the press to that extent.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Why do they interfere with freedom of speech to the extent that they use great big mouth filling words about freedom of expression and make no reference to the freedom to hear what is being said? I had never heard of one of our basic freedoms being split in two before this bill was placed before members of parliament.
On December 21, I had reached the fifth application by CATV which had been rejected and referred to in the interesting letter from the Secretary of State. She said in that letter that the application by Northern Telephone Limited to drop the Sault Ste. Marie station from its existing system at Wawa in favour of a channel emanating from Cadillac, Michigan was rejected because the Board of Broadcast Governors felt that the system should carry the available Canadian channel. That is an overpowering answer if I ever heard one. This application to drop the Sault Ste. Marie station in favour of a channel from Cadillac, Michigan was rejected because it was felt the system should carry the existing Canadian channel. This really sounds terrific and shows us the kind of pure Canadian government we have. The fact that this paragraph does not contain all the facts is only incidental, I suppose, to this matter under discussion.
In order to give all the facts of this matter I would have to take up too much of the time of the committee in reading the correspondence from the operators of the present CATV installation at Wawa. In order to save time I will paraphrase the information which I have here in printed form. Following an application for a CATV licence at Wawa some years ago a license was granted. There is no connection whatsoever between the T.V. station at Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa by land lines. The application was made to the Board of Broadcast Governors, as it should be, for
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting microwave facilities between Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and Wawa in order that the people in Wawa would be able to receive the station programs from Sault Ste. Marie, which is a privately owned station with C.B.C. affiliate status. This cost the operator of the community television station at Wawa a great deal of money, but he brought in the Sault Ste. Marie station. He wanted to bring in that station. He did bring it in and he has done so ever since the franchise was first granted.
In the course of time a number of people in Wawa began to agitate for different programs than those coming over the one station from Sault Ste. Marie and the C.B.C. was able to bring-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Mr. Stafford:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak again on the broadcasting bill since a number of items have come to my attention following my remarks in this house on December 21. I rise again also because there are one or two matters of grave importance pertaining to the relationship between C.B.C. programming and the nature of this new bill which I did not have time to deal with before.
May I begin with a word of congratulation to the C.B.C. management for what appears to be a change in policy. Other speakers have mentioned the treatment of the negro question in the U.S.A. over C.B.C. and its apparent one-sidedness. On December 21 I drew attention to the fact that the news and public affairs section of our broadcasting system continually played upon the riots and the vicious side of the race problem across the border but seldom, if ever, mentioned the many positive and creative changes which are taking place to improve race relations. I said:
You have heard Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and other extremist negro leaders interviewed over C.B.C. Why have we not heard the moderate majority leaders?
I am pleased to report that following these various statements in the house C.B.C. T.V. news on January 8, during the main newscast at 11 p.m., not only televised a story on the election of the first negro mayor of the city of Cleveland, Ohio, but also presented part of a talk given by the great moderate negro leader Roy Wilkins. It has also been apparent that some of the other side of the Viet Nam war, the United States side, is finally being shown over C.B.C. news, although
5826	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting there are still huge gaps in the ordinary news that Canadians should be getting over their own radio and T.V. news networks.
Let me quote from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of January 10, 1968 as follows:
The Viet Cong greatly increased their program of terror against the civilian population of South Viet Nam during 1967, with figures of murders and kidnappings rising steadily as the year progressed ... A total of 3,820 civilians were murdered by the Viet Cong during the year, compared to 1,618 killed during the previous year. During 1967, 5,368 civilians were kidnapped compared with 3,507 during 1966.
We have heard over the C.B.C. for three or four years of countless so-called atrocities committed by the United States through bombing; insinuations of the use of poison gas have been played up; pictures of poor helpless children maimed by the United States forces have been shown. But when it comes to 3,280 non-combatant men, women and children in the villages murdered deliberately in cold blood by the Viet Cong in a tragic and completely uncivilized campaign of terror, against all the rules of modern warfare as accepted by civilized countries today, we have nothing but silence from the C.B.C. news and public affairs programs.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but what he is saying now has no reference to clause 2 of the bill and the amendment thereto now under consideration. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the clause now under study.


An hon. Member:: This is the clause for general discussion.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Mr. Chairman, I submit that I am speaking about broadcasting policy for Canada. Clause 2 of the bill mentions policy, services and includes information covering a whole range of programming as well as the development of national unity and a continuing Canadian unity. I submit that my remarks are on point.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think when another Chairman was in the chair the committee agreed that we would deal in the first instance with all general speeches and would then deal with the specific points in the subclauses to clause 2. I think perhaps Your Honour was not in the chamber at that time. Unless the committee has some agreement as to a modus oper-andi we are not going to be able to deal with

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
this matter. I hope members of the committee will agree that we deal with general matters and then with the subclauses when all members in the chamber are exhausted. I believe this is what my hon. friend is now doing.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: 
Harold Edwin Stafford: Let me continue. There are no special programs here such as we have about every other horror front. We Canadians are being short changed by our broadcasting medium. We are not getting a true picture of this tragic war which everyone of any stature on our delegation to the I.C.C. who has spent time in Viet Nam will tell you was started, planned and directed from the beginning by North Viet Nam, as it still is. Our new bill must ensure that this kind of news censorship is not continued in the future.
When I spoke in this house before Christmas I drew to the hon. members' attention a flagrant abuse of news about the United States and a glaring anti-American bias of the public affairs and news production staff of the C.B.C. Even though there has been some improvement, there continue to be glaring examples of anti-Americanism, instead of straightforward and informative newscasting where required.
I wish to cite the following examples, since not only must the bill ensure that the C.B.C. serves Canada effectively in this field but it is vital that the newly appointed heads of the C.B.C. be informed of some of the abuses of that organization and have a more clear idea of what is ahead of them. As elected representatives of the Canadian people charged with the final responsibility for Canadian broadcasting, we have in front of us a task from which none of us may shrink.
How dangerous some reporting can be is best illustrated by an extensive year-end report given over the C.B.C. on January 2 when the C.B.C.'s Washington correspondent, Knowlton Nash, the apparent successor of the fabled anti-American James M. Minifie, told Canadians in no uncertain terms what to expect in the United States in 1968.
Nash was chairing a group of C.B.C. correspondents from all over the world. Each of them gave an opinion with regard to the area
January 22, 1968

of the world he knew best and spoke of what to expect in the coming year. Most were reasonably objective, but not so Mr. Nash with regard to the all important area of the United States, our neighbour and ally. What was shocking were the categorical statements he made on what to expect in the United States this year. He either made a direct statement or carefully selected a quote which supported his obvious anti-United States bias. The following are some of the statements made by Nash. Throughout the hour long session he repeated over and over again the following words on any excuse: "American escalation in Viet Nam", seeming to place all the world's ills here and also seeming to play the old advertising trick of scaring the public through repetition. This is not reporting, it is propaganda.
He said:
10,000 more U.S. soldiers will be killed ... the American escalation will increase in 1968 ... and they will cross into Cambodia.
He went on to make the following statements:
More and more race riots.
There will be a huge advance in the gross national product and large steps made in the race to the moon.
A growing suspicion of all governments.
A fast growing spread of the new morality.
President Johnson so unpopular that he can be beaten by anyone of the five key Republican candidates.
I should like hon. members to match Nash's categorical reporting on President Johnson's chances of re-election against the statements appearing in the Globe and Mail the very next morning. First, there was the New York Times service report from Washington which stated:
Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York is the only major Republican presidential possibility who would defeat President Johnson if the 1938 election were held today, a national political survey indicates.
Why did Knowlton Nash neglect this important survey when he made his statement about all five candidates easily defeating President Johnson?
Then again, the editorial in the same paper on the same day, January 3, went even further in commenting about President Johnson:
He begins the election year with the cheering news from the Gallup poll that 46 per cent of American adults approve of the way he is handling his job ... 8 per cent more than in September and October after the summer time riots.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
After noting the difficulties under which the President is labouring, the editorial continues:
Yet he may still win the nomination and the November elections. This, partly, is because a president has the priceless advantage of daily initiative in executive action as well as the semisacrosanct aura of holding in trust the nation's highest office.
How much more realistic is this assessment than Mr. Nash's bombastic attacks on the President in what can only be judged to be a deliberate policy on his part.
While speaking of President Johnson, I wonder if hon. members noted the discrepancy between what President Johnson stressed in his annual state of the union message which C.B.C. kindly carried and the C.B.C. news reporting the next morning in the important 8 a.m. newscast. The newscaster read only one long quote from the President's address in which he mentioned the seriousness of the problems facing the United States on the domestic front and the danger the nation confronted if they were not solved. He was followed by a Washington newscaster who stated that most observers felt that President Johnson's address was not only dull but it failed to provide any real program to meet the domestic crisis. He stated that most Republicans opposed his speech, and most Democrats said it was lacklustre.
In grave contrast was what the Canadian newspapers wrote the next morning. The Montreal Gazette of January 18 wrote in heavy black headlines across the top of page one: "LBJ asks for increases in taxes, jobs, housing". The sub heading read:	"Cures
outlined for domestic troubles". The paper then went on to list the vast new expenditures asked for by the president for many programs including a new government industry partnership program for training and employing the hard core unemployed; a ten year housing program for six million new dwellings; $1 billion for a model cities program; a vast new child health program; and the appointment of a special consumers council. None of these was mentioned on this key C.B.C. news program. There was only an accumulation of negatives.
Let us examine the large three-column heading in the Globe and Mail of the same morning which read: "Record Outlay, Housing Drive, Johnson's Aim". The story written
5828	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting by Fraser Robertson from Washington starts as follows:
Focussing on the domestic scene... president Johnson last night proposed new measures to provide jobs for 500,000 hard core unemployed during the next three years, and to launch a tenfold increase over the next decade in housing construction for low income families.
While the C.B.C. tried to give the impression that the President's program was poorly received and was dull, the Ottawa Citizen in a front page story the next day wrote:
President Johnson was applauded time and again in the crowded house of representatives chamber.
Anyone listening to the address could not help but be impressed by the very loud and lengthy ovation punctuated by cheers which greeted the President when he entered the house of representatives. There are within the C.B.C. at least a few people who are either trying to foist their own anti-United States views on Canadians or are deliberately trying to stir up bad relations between the United States and Canada for reasons one can only believe are against the best interests of Canada. One observer has suggested that these people also have in mind the large listening audience along the United States border and are trying to influence them against their government's policies. This is a dangerous game if such is the case. If these charges are not accurate, we have a hopelessly incompetent news and public affairs management within the C.B.C. for which the nation is paying a fantastic bill. I wish to absolve, of course, the many honest reporters within the organization who are trying to do a job. But let us remember Tom Gould, to whom I referred on December 21, and his reasons for resigning.
Perhaps the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of the same day reflects more appropriately the importance of the President's speech in the following comment:
What President Johnson does to combat internal U.S. problems has an importance of its own, for on it depends the future well being of the leading non-communist country of the world ... thanks to its initial idealism, its tremendous vitality, its technological prowess, its huge resources and its determined spirit, the U.S. has been able to attain a prosperity unparalleled in world history.
But it is still beset with harsh internal problems ... to a lesser extent Canadians share the same prosperity and many of the same problems. It is important to recognize the challenge, otherwise there is the danger of our affluent society becoming a complacent society that could ultimately corrode from within.

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Then, again, on the 11 p.m. C.B.C. television news, following the announcement in Washington of the new and far reaching tight money policy, our C.B.C. Washington reporter Knowlton Nash commented with great certainty, as usual, that Canada would certainly be hard hit by these new United States regulations. He gave us a tear-jerker reference to the terrible fact that Canada's economy is so tightly tied to the success of the United States economy. However, within a few hours Canada's Minister of Finance stated publicly that there was every indication the United States action would not have a serious effect on Canada's economy.
One of the major methods by which Canadians are misled in C.B.C. news and public affairs reporting is by the careful omission of important stories that tend to counteract some of the favourite themes of this inner circle of united minds. For example, the Montreal Gazette of January 16 contained an article which read in part as follows:
British foreign minister George Brown-
He was speaking in Tokyo.
-yesterday praised President Johnson for going as far as you can go toward ending the war in Viet Nam and criticized North Viet Nam for refusing to do its part.
Walter Cronkite, on an American national newscast, on January 8 said:
The latest poll indicates President Johnson can win the next election handily.
On the same newscast a major story quoted George Romney, Governor of Michigan and United States presidential candidate, as saying after his return from a recent tour of Viet Nam:
The United States should not stop bombing North Viet Nam unless there is a satisfactory guarantee from North Viet Nam.


Mr. Orlikow:: Was that before he was brainwashed or after?


Harold Edwin Stafford: Canadians will recall the extensive coverage C.B.C. gave to the famous statement Governor Romney was alleged to have made, that he was brainwashed by the army on a previous trip to Viet Nam. Why have we not heard the important follow-up by Mr. Romney? Are Canadians not supposed to hear news like that? Why have we not heard over C.B.C. a rundown of the findings of a group of 14 top United States Asian scholars?
January 22, 1968

The front page of the Globe and Mail of last December 20 had a seven-column headline entitled, "Top United States Scholars Warn Bigger Wars Would Follow Communists Victory in Viet Nam". The foreword to their study, as quoted in the news story, reads as follows:
The moderate segment of the academic community must now be heard lest other voices be mistaken for majority sentiment.
Again I would ask the question-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


George Louis Chatterton: He does not know the answer.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wonder whether the hon. member read the statement by the 14 United States academics? The implication of the statement was that the war in Viet Nam should not be escalated.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member again, but I cannot see the relevancy of the war in Viet Nam to the clause now being studied. Standing order 59(2) says that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. This is an order of the house. All I am trying to do is make the hon. member abide by the order that has been accepted by the house.


Harold Edwin Stafford: As I said a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the broadcasting policy for Canada. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important than to have fair, unbiased programs in which both points of view are put before the Canadian public. If there is anything more important than that, I would like to have it pointed out tonight. This is exactly the point I am making. I submit that my time is not yet expired, and what I am now talking about is the fact that we do not have fair and unbiased programs in Canada.


David Orlikow: Read on. Who wrote the speech?


An hon. Member:: Lubor Zink.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Then again, I ask the question, as has one other member, why, on Christmas day, should Canadians have to be subjected over C.B.C. television to a much heralded peace program starring a Canadian 27053-3681
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting interviewer, Neil Morrison, purporting to ask innocent questions of a panel of speakers at a peace conference in Switzerland? The conference speakers were composed entirely, as far as could be seen, of men well known for their opposition to United States policy in Viet Nam. It was so one-sided that even the C.B.C. announcer ended the show by saying, "You may have felt that this program was too anti-American."


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Was Pope John XXIII one of those fellows?


Harold Edwin Stafford: 
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, my time
expired when I was commenting on the seventh application for a C.A.T.V. installation that had been turned down by the board of broadcast governors, as outlined in the informative letter to me from the Secretary of State dated December 13. I have stated that the paragraph in question was full of fine-sounding phrases, but it is unfortunate that not all the facts behind the paragraph were actually placed in the letter. I have not any doubt that the paragraph in the letter is the information received from the Board of Broadcast Governors or from the Department of Transport with regard to that refusal of a CATV application for Wawa, wishing to drop the reception of the station at Sault Ste. Marie.
I should like to refer the committee to the letter received from the Minister of Transport under date December 20 in connection with this turning down of a CATV application for Wawa. The application, dated June 24, 1966, was submitted by Northern Telephone Limited, licensee of a CATV system at Montreal River, Ontario, serving Wawa, Ontario, for authority to discontinue reception from station CJIC-TV Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and to add reception and distribution of station WWTV-TV, Cadillac, Traverse City, Michigan. Wawa is located within the proposed grade B contour of a television rebroadcasting station which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was authorized to establish at Wawa, Ontario on September 22, 1966. This station, CBLAT-3, was authorized
January 22, 1968

to commence scheduled broadcasting on December 8, 1967.
It seemed impossible to me to believe that the CATV station in operation at Wawa, Ontario proposed to drop reception from the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario station because there is a requirement in the Radio Act that CATV stations must pick up the local T.V. station the moment they go into operation and must keep it on their dial.
In this connection I refer to numerous comments which have been made throughout the nation and in this House of Commons from time to time to the effect that CATV installations jeopardize the reception of local T.V. stations in homes in the vicinity. The statement that they jeopardize the reception of local stations is false, Mr. Chairman, because it is a requirement that CATV stations must carry on their dial the local T.V. stations.
Many people, of course, will not view programs from local T.V. stations that are on their CATV dial when there is a choice of stations. However, many people do state that CATV operators jeopardize the local T.V. stations once their installations commence operation.
In this connection I should like to read a statement made by Mr. K. J. Easton, secretary of the National Community Antenna Television Association of Canada, in a letter written from 130 Bloor street west, Toronto, and dated December 15, 1967, five weeks ago:
There appears to be some misunderstanding in Ottawa concerning the possibility that CATV operators might jeopardize the interests of a local T.V. broadcaster by removing his signal from the cable and substituting some other program material. I think this could be corrected by consideration of the following facts.
That is, the misunderstanding could be corrected.
First of course, an operator is expressly forbidden to do this by the terms of his license issued under the Radio Act and it is assumed that a similar regulation will be made by the C.R.C. under the new Broadcasting Act. The general radio regulations, part II, section 68C (1) (b) says as a condition of the license that "during the scheduled hours of operation of a station performing a Commercial Broadcasting Receiving Service, broadcasting received by that station shall not be altered or curtailed in any way except by agreement with the broadcasting station."
However, assume that an operator is prepared to contravene the conditions of his license, what is the technical possibility of his being able to prevent subscribers from receiving the local station?
It is common knowledge in the CATV industry that the weakest link in the whole system as far as susceptibility to external interference is concerned is the subscriber's television receiver and when the local T.V. transmitter is broadcasting within a few miles of the receiver, sufficient signal is picked up on the set itself to produce a strong
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting picture often equivalent to that which could be received on rabbit ears or a similar local antenna. If now a CATV cable is connected to the receiver and the signals of the local station are distributed over the cable on the same channel on which they are broadcast, then due to transmission time delay on the cable, a second image will be produced on the screen displaced from the first one and producing the effect of a heavy ghost. Generally the amount of signal picked up direct on the set is sufficient to make the resultant picture quite unacceptable.
For this reason it is the normal practice to convert the local station to some other VHF channel for distribution on the cable and not to use the local channel allocation for video program distribution at all.
Thus for example on the cable system in Ottawa, CBOT broadcasting on channel 4 is converted to channel 2 on cable, CBOFT broadcasting on channel 9 is converted to 3, and CJOH broadcasting on channel 13 is converted to 6.
Now suppose as has been implied that the CATV operator wanted to remove the local station, for example CBOFT, and replace it with another program he considers would be more acceptable to his subscribers or commercially more advantageous to him, he would have to remove it from channel 3 on the cable. However CBOFT is still receivable by the subscriber on channel 9 position on his dial because the set is picking it up direct and since there is no program on this channel on the cable, the picture will not be degraded beyond any degradation due to direct pickup at that location such as might be experienced if the set owner were not a cable subscriber.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
These facts refer to the station in Wawa where, we are told, the local CATV operator wanted to drop the Sault Ste Marie station and bring in Cadillac.
I wish to explain here that in December the C.B.C. began operating a rebroadcasting station in Wawa, Ontario, which brings in the same programs to Wawa as the local CATV operator had been bringing from Sault Ste Marie for some years past. I presume that the members of the house will be interested to learn that the programs the CATV operator in Wawa has been bringing in from Sault Ste Marie, in English only over the years, are now available in French and English over the C.B.C. rebroadcasting station which has been put into Wawa. You have the choice in Wawa, today, of getting the same program in English only, from Sault Ste Marie, through the CATV operator, or you can get the same program in English or French from the rebroadcasting station that has been established in Wawa.
Bear in mind that the CATV operator has to carry the local station. So, in Wawa, he is picking up the French and English station. I presume that there are people in this house who will say that because a program is coming in in French and English it is much
5832	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting superior to the one that is coming in in English only. But, they must realize that the operator in Wawa has two positions on his dial, one of which is taken up by the program in English entirely, and the second position which is taken up by the same program coming in in English and in French.
The operator wanted to drop the program that was coming in in English only from Sault Ste Marie, and bring in a variation-bring in the programs from Cadillac and Traverse City, Michigan. That way the people in Wawa would have a choice between the local C.B.C. station broadcasting in French and English, which is available on the CATV dial, or the Marquette, Michigan, station, or the Cadillac-Traverse City, Michigan, station.
But what happened? The Board of Broadcast Governors recommended against any such thing as dropping that Sault Ste Marie program, which they had been bringing in at great expense over the years. When I speak of "great expense over the years" I want to read into the record the correspondence that this local CATV operator has been faced with. One has to admire him for bringing in programs to the people in Wawa, and Wawa is certainly an isolated community, about 160 miles north of Sault Ste Marie.
I want you to be happy in the knowledge that the Board of Broadcast Governors has recommended to the Department of Transport, and the Department of Transport has been kind enough to accept their recommendation. Now the people at Wawa can look at the same program in English only from Sault Ste Marie or they can switch over and get the same program in English or French from the C.B.C. rebroadcast station in Wawa. Why in the name of heaven the CATV operator has to carry two similar programs on two channels on his dial I do not know, and I do not think anybody on the Board of Broadcast Governors can explain that satisfactorily.
To show you how much money the CATV operator has expended in Wawa and the efforts he has made to bring enlightenment, information and entertainment, to quote a phrase from the white paper, to the residents around Wawa, I shall read to the committee a letter, under date of December 5, 1966, written to Dr. Andrew Stewart, Chairman, Board of Broadcast Governors, 48 Kideau Street, Ottawa, Ontario:
These problems have arisen as a result of the announced intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish a rebroadcasting station in Wawa, Ontario, which we understand will soon become operational.

DEBATES	January 22, 1968
It became operational within one year of this letter:
Since we are at the present time, and have been, for the past two years, providing to our subscribers in Wawa, programmes from station CJIC-TV, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario via microwave facilities leased from Northern Telephone Limited, you will readily appreciate that upon the establishment of the CBC rebroadcasting station, the residents of Wawa will find little if any need for our services since CJIC-TV is a CBC affiliate and during prime viewing times, programmes will be duplicated.
Our company is therefore faced with the prospect of abandoning its operation in the town of Wawa, and in relation to the size of the community, having to absorb the loss of a significant residual investment.
We pioneered the introduction of television in Wawa in 1958, and were responsible for fulfilling a very real need for television entertainment in this remote community.
At the outset, we brought to the residents of Wawa, one channel only, being that of the Marquette, Michigan station received off air from across Lake Superior. However, the unreliability and dubious quality of this station, received at a distance of more than 125 miles from its originating point over a large body of water, made it mandatory for our company to provide alternative programmes. Thus from the latter part of 1959 and up until November of 1964, we made available to our subscribers a second channel, consisting of films and documentaries from the National Film Board, originating from our studios.
The demands placed upon us by the residents of Wawa for Canadian programmes (hockey and football were not the least of their motives) became so great in the year 1964, that we decided to abandon the programmes of films originated from our studios and outlay the funds required to bring to Wawa, programmes from station CJIC-Sault Ste. Marie via microwave facilities leased from Northern Telephone Limited. Our lease with Northern Telephone became effective on November 27th, 1964, and is for a term of five years. Under this lease, we paid an installation charge of $12,000 and undertook to pay a yearly rental charge of $11,400 for the initial five year term.
Since the programmes of CJIC presently being carried over the microwave facilities will be of no value to our subscribers when the CBC establishes its rebroadcasting station in Wawa, Northern Telephone Limited have sought authority from the Department of Transport to substitute their present authority to carry CJIC-TV over its microwave facilities, for station WWTV-TV Cadillac, Michigan, and the authority sought by Northern Telephone is to become effective only upon the establishment by the CBC of its rebroadcasting station in Wawa.
Should such authority be granted, our company would then hope to be able to continue to subsist in Wawa, by continuing to make available to our subscribers, signals from Marquette, Michigan (albeit unreliable and of dubious value) and a stable signal from WWTV-TV Cadillac transported over Northern's existing microwave facilities.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Shall I call it ten o'clock, sir? Progress reported.
January 22, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	5833



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I think about a month ago I asked on orders of the day the following question, to be found on page 4876 of Hansard:
Can the minister say whether a decision has been made in respect of the recommendations of the Gill committee for the inclusion of hospital employees under unemployment insurance?
To that the minister replied:
-I do not think it is necessary to implement any of the recommendations of the Gill committee in order to provide coverage for hospital employees. It is now open to hospitals to apply to the commission for coverage. Employees in several hospitals are covered.
My purpose in taking advantage of this late evening period is to reiterate that question. I am sure that what the minister said was quite correct. I think he did not say quite enough, and in line with this opinion I should like to quote from a letter which I received from the unemployment insurance commissioner just a day before I asked the question. The commissioner, Mr. Hay, wrote to me as follows on November 27, 1967:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This will acknowledge your letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner inquiring whether hospital employees are to be covered by unemployment insurance. As Mr. Laval Fortier is no longer with this Commission your letter has come to me for attention.
When the Gill Committee reviewed the Unemployment Insurance Act some time ago, it recommended that coverage be extended to hospital employees in addition to several other groups not then covered by the Act. Extension of coverage to hospital employees has also been recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee and by this Commission.
No decision has been announced by the Government as to what action it proposes to take regarding these recommendations. However, it has announced, as you know, that it intends to bring in certain amendments in the near future.
It is my understanding that the government is giving consideration-or was at the time I asked my question-to several amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act but that it
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion does not wish to make a change in the situation affecting hospital employees in this connection until it has an overall policy to announce; it does not want to change one part of the picture before considering the picture as a whole. If this is the case, I can understand it, but I should like to take the opportunity tonight to raise once again the question of the provisions of the act as they refer to hospital employees in the light of the recommendation of the Gill committee, the unemployment insurance advisory committee and the commission itself. I should like, if possible, to receive an answer from the government on this point.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon.
member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) has accurately set out the position of hospital employees and their coverage by unemployment insurance.
It is true that the Gill report recommended to the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commissioners that coverage be extended to hospital employees. This is the case. Certainly this has been requested by both employers and employees. I understand that the reason for exempting hospital employees at the beginning was that years ago, in certain parts of the country at least, hospitals were for the most part run by charitable organizations or religious communities and it was felt that coverage of hospital employees would impose a difficult financial burden upon the organizations which made many of these hospitals possible.
I agree with the broad principle expressed by the hon. member, namely that it is desirable to adopt as soon as possible many of the recommendations of the Gill report. I think, for instance, of the fact that the Kennedy round which has recently been concluded has placed a lot of emphasis upon what the government intends to do for industry and not very much emphasis upon what the government will do for the workers of this country who could be temporarily unemployed in consequence of the dislocation which is bound to be caused during the transition period.
So, I am rather pleased to note on today's order paper, and I bring this to the attention of the hon. member, a government notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), which reads:
That the house do go Into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
January 22, 1968
5834	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the coverage provided by the act; to establish a new schedule of contributions to be paid by employers on behalf of employees covered by the act; and to establish a new schedule of benefits corresponding to the new schedule of contributions.
Not being a member of the cabinet I have not seen what is proposed in detail, but from the previous statements of the minister, as

well as from the letter which the hon. gentleman was so kind to read, I would presume that in all probability this resolution will meet the problem which has been so eloquently raised by the hon. gentleman this evening.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.07 p.m.

Tuesday, January 23, 1968