1968-01-23

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being out of order, I wish to point out that the Quebec fleur-de-lis will be celebrating within the next few days the twentieth anniversary of its official recognition. That flag is more than the emblem of the province of Quebec. It is a rallying symbol for the French speaking community in Canada.
In closing, I say it would be desirable that, in certain circumstances, it be flown on parliament hill, beside our unifoliate, as a symbol of the harmony between the two great linguistic communities of Canada.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume the hon. member for Villeneuve wishes to raise a different question, because there is no question of privilege in the case of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.



MR. CAOUETTE-PROTEST AGAINST FORWARDING OF INCOME TAX FORMS

David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien) is not here, but as a member of this house and a French Canadian, I must protest against the fact that officials of the Department of National Revenue are sending me 1967 income tax forms in English only, addressed as follows:
Master Real Caouette
Parliament House
Ottawa
I even wonder if the official in question did not deliberately send me that form in English only in an envelope also endorsed entirely in English:
Taxation Data Center
P.O. Box 456
Ottawa 2, Ontario
Mr Speaker, I protest against this fact, and I think it is a question of privilege, because last year, I asked the department to send French forms to French speaking people in the province of Quebec. I was then told that errors had been made.
I maintain that no English speaking member would accept to receive a French income tax form, and I have the right to pay my federal taxes in French, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that as of July 1 next our tariff schedule relating to chemicals will be revised extensively along the lines recommended by the Tariff Board and that it is the intention to introduce legislation on the matter in the coming months.
To pave the way for this legislation it has been necessary to renegotiate certain existing commitments under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I have had prepared a list showing the results of these negotiations and with the permission of the house I should like to table this list.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, o (2:40 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roberi L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement last week indicating that the government was considering representations made by the provinces on the subject of the medical health and services program, and in view of the importance of the government's decision on this

January 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry matter to the country, and particularly in view of its importance to provincial governments which are now trying to settle their budgets for presentation to their legislatures for the current fiscal year, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the house when the government will announce the results of its review of the representations made by the provincial governments on this subject?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said on Friday last at his press conference that he would make a statement after hearing the provinces when the review was completed. He also indicated, as I said yesterday, that parliament, with the support of all parties, had passed the medicare act; that it is permissive legislation, and that its implementation is a matter for the provinces. He further indicated, of course, that it was the duty of the federal government to hear the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In addition to recognizing its duty to hear representations from the provinces and consider those representations, is it not also the duty of the government to render a decision and to inform the house when a decision on this matter will be made known?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the duty of the government to inform the hon. gentleman that the government is giving attention to the representations made by the provinces. This has to be read together with the statement of the legal fact as given by the Prime Minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the instructions which have been issued by the President of the United States to American subsidiaries located in Canada, as well as in other countries, limiting the amount of capital which they may invest to 65 per cent of the base period and requiring them to send 35 per cent of their earnings back to the United States. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether any instructions have been issued by the Canadian government to United States subsidiaries located in this country with respect to this subject, or whether the hon. gentleman will be required to telephone the secretary of the treasury every time he wants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
gentleman may only ask a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am merely asking whether it is the intention of the minister to request the secretary of the treasury of the United States to tell corporations in Canada what constitutes good citizenship behaviour.


Mitchell William Sharp: As the house knows, and as the hon. gentleman knows, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) has issued guide lines indicating the nature of good corporate behaviour. I do not see any reason at the present time for issuing any other guide lines of this kind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that instructions from the government of the United States are most specific with respect to the amount of earnings which must be returned to the United States, may I ask whether the Canadian government intends to issue any instructions on this subject and whether the Minister of Finance thinks it is in keeping with the sovereign power of Canada that instructions to subsidiaries should come from a foreign government?


Mr. Speaker:: I would agree with the hon. member that the first part of the supplementary question is in order. However, the second part is in the nature of an argument.


Mitchell William Sharp: The instruction of the United States government to the parent companies of these organizations is that the flow of direct investment to a group of countries including Canada-and Canada is not singled out-shall be held to 65 per cent of the base period. This is supplemented by an instruction that subsidiary companies outside the United States are not to change their normal behaviour in the payment of dividends. This is the only instruction which has been issued.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we have a current account deficit of about $1 billion with the United States, does the minister consider that the United States government's directive to subsidiaries of United States companies which operate in Canada, that they shall invest only 65 per cent of the amount they invested in this country in the base year 1965, is allowing those subsidiaries to be good corporate citizens of this country?
January 23, 1968	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the hon. gentleman has misunderstood the nature of the United States directive. I ask him to read it before I answer his question.


George Harris Hees: I have not in any way misunderstood the United States directive and I ask the minister to answer my question in a straightforward manner.



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the new minister of housing. Will he use his good offices and prevail upon the Minister of Finance to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CARTER COMMISSION ON TAXATION-TABLING OF WHITE PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask when we may expect the white paper, which the government has promised to bring down, setting forth its views regarding the Carter commission recommendations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the parliamentary recess the Prime Minister announced that the white paper would not be brought down until the question of leadership of the party had been settled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that the government does not intend to make known to the house and the country its views regarding this matter? I understood that the Prime Minister's statement was with reference to any action that might be taken. Does this mean that the government does not intend to make its views known on this question until after April 6?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement was with respect to the white paper, which will contain the government's views.
DEBATES	5837
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



REQUEST THAT CANADIAN DOLLAR BE RETURNED TO FORMER DISCOUNT RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
As the Canadian dollar has regained its value and general confidence, is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to ask the Bank of Canada to return its discount rate from 7 per cent to 6 per cent, that is the level where it was a week ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to the house that developments in the exchange market are reasonably satisfactory. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the house that it is the desire of the governor of the bank, as well as myself, that it be possible to reduce that rate as soon as confidence has been established that there will not be a recurrence of any outflow of funds.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since it is impossible to get additional copies of Bill No. C-186 to meet the demand of several electors, can the minister assure us that the number of copies will be increased in order to give satisfaction to those who want more information?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have heard that there is any shortage of copies. Certainly, members of the house have been supplied with them. I shall see to it that copies are made available in English and French, as required, to those groups or parties who are interested in making representations.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What I have to ask is prompted by an article that appeared in the Montreal Star

January 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry and my remarks are directed to the Minister of Labour. Since in Montreal English copies of Bill C-186 are not available to union members, and since one union leader was advised that the bill will not be available in English until after it becomes law, would the minister, when he is looking into the matter, take into consideration also the question I have raised?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that copies of the bill were made available here in English and French. There were more copies in English than in French. Certainly we do not propose to make copies of the bill available to all Canadians, but any groups who are interested in making representations certainly will be able to obtain copies in either of the two official languages.


Robert Muir: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not agree that union leaders, of all people, should be able to obtain copies of this bill in either of the two languages, English or French?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: I congratulate him on his
appointment and wish him well. We expect great things of him. My question is whether there will be a clarification regarding the regulations covering the granting of N.H.A. loans on building lots that are not serviced by sewer facilities?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his congratulations. With respect to his question, C.M.H.C. policy in built-up areas has always required that there be piped services. No wells or septic tanks are allowed.
May I also take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house that the number of houses which were completed in 1967 came to 164,123 which is 30,000 above the 1966 level.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Edgar John Benson: If we include the accommodation that was made available for the elderly, and for universities, the total comes to 175,000 units.


An hon. Member:: Not enough.


Edgar John Benson: That is the highest level of building in Canada's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if this is a statement on motions, will a spokesman for each opposition party be entitled to comment on it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Howard Earl Johnston: I wish to ask a supplementary question, because I think the intent of my question was lost in some parts of the minister's answer. I would like to ask him more specifically whether N.H.A. loans will be available for construction on lots in areas that are not built up but that are approved by local health authorities, whether the lots have sewer connections or not?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in respect to this part of my hon. friend's question, as there are details involved with respect to varying situations I would respectfully request that I be allowed to take the question as notice in order that I may reply more fully later.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: As a supplementary question, can the minister advise whether he thinks the figure of
163,000,	which is some 30,000 short of the economic council estimate, is satisfactory?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is argumentative.



POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS AT CURRENT SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing. Notwithstanding his statistics can he inform the house whether at this session we will be presented with the amendments, as promised by the Prime Minister to the national housing conference, in order that those Canadians who need houses can have them?
January 23, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I doubt if these amendments would be presented at this session, presuming the session comes to an end very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why?


Edgar John Benson: However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the house that these amendments are now being prepared and that they will be submitted to the house at the earliest opportunity; and I would also like to state that we will meet the economic council's objectives.


Mr. Starr:: When?


James Russell Keays: As a further supplementary question may I ask the minister if the amendments which are going to be brought forward will be those which were recommended from this side of the house?


Edgar John Benson: I would simply like to say that most of the recommendations from that side of the house have not been very good.



POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF INTEREST CEILING ON LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further supplementary question to the minister. In view of his remarks yesterday to the National House Builders Association convention that he would like to see the interest ceiling removed from N.H.A. loans, can he tell us when he intends to implement such a policy?


Edgar John Benson: I am presently preparing a submission to the cabinet in this regard, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing, arising out of an answer he gave to an earlier question. I should like to ask him, while he is considering amendments to the act to enable the removal of the ceiling on interest rates under the N.H.A. mortgages, whether he will also give consideration to policies to subsidize such higher interest rates as may result from the removal of the ceiling or from the high interest rates now in existence.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when I answered an earlier question I might have seemed to be
Inquiries of the Ministry a little facetious. In the new job which I have undertaken I will seriously consider suggestions from all sides of the house concerning how we can achieve the objective of the economic council of 585,000 units by December, 1970, which I think we can and must undertake to do.



C.M.H.C.-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SPECULATIVE LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. This question is not an urgent one.']
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Can the minister tell us if the speculative loan program to builders, in force last spring, will be continued this spring?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Labour, who was previously responsible for C.M.H.C., made clear our policy in this regard. However, I will check into the matter.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister seek a joint meeting of the defence and external affairs committees in order that the members of those committees may receive information and consider the government's position relative to staying in NATO and NORAD on a renegotiated basis as promised several weeks ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that such an arrangement could be made effective as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister intend to make any statement concerning or in reply to the unwarranted attack on the personnel of

January 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry the Department of External Affairs made by Rabbi Feinberg yesterday in Montreal? I refer in particular to Rabbi Feinberg's reported accusations that the members of the Canadian mission in Viet Nam are prejudiced against all coloured races.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which my hon. friend directs my attention, but I can say I am sure that this house and the entire nation recognize the great services performed by officials in the Department of External Affairs, as well as in other departments of government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the announcement by Turkey and the United States in respect of their recognition of the regime in Greece and the imminent announcement by the United Kingdom to like effect, does the minister contemplate making a statement in the house today or in the near future in this regard, so far as the Canadian government is concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have been following the development of contacts between various emissaries of the regime at Athens and King Constantine in Rome. These contacts have included exchanges between the king and the prime minister of Greece. Against this background, in my view the question is not so much that of granting of formal recognition as the resumption of working relationships with the Greek regime.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can I take it that the minister's explanation is tantamount to the recognition of that regime?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have in mind the continuation of relations that have been maintained with the King of Greece. The head of state continues to be the king.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Agriculture. Does he endorse the suggestions made in two of his departmental publications that western farmers should reduce their wheat acreage this year because of the piling up of wheat now resulting from lower exports.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the decision in respect of wheat acreage is made by the farmers individually in a free enterprise system, and I subscribe to that system.


James Ernest Pascoe: Is the minister aware that suggestions for reducing the wheat acreage are contained in two of the publications from his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not an urgent one.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilion Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to a question asked yesterday the minister said, with regard to Canadian government aid for earthquake victims in western Sicily, that the matter is being looked into further. I wonder whether he has anything further to add by way of granting financial, medical and food assistance, initiated by the government, to be sent to the victims of the tragic earthquake in western Sicily?
While I am standing I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he can speed up the processing of immigration applications from individuals in those areas affected by the tragedy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the hon. member's interest in this matter and I assure him that consultations are taking place now and should be completed very soon.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the acting minister or the parliamentary
January 23, 1968
secretary. Is the minister aware that the Canadian Transport Commission has given notice of a rail line abandonment hearing under old order 123994, contrary to the minister's assurance given to the house on December 18 last to the effect that any further hearings would be free of any previous orders or preconceptions ?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I hope he will be able to return to the house tomorrow.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to ask the minister through his parliamentary secretary whether his policy statement on this matter has been communicated to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I assume it has, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into the matter this afternoon.



VISIT OF STANDING COMMITTEE TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, 1 should like to direct my question to the hon. member for Hamilton West in his capacity as chairman of the committee on transport and communications. In doing so I ask the indulgence of the minister's parliamentary secretary. Can the hon. member give members of the house, and indeed the people of the Atlantic provinces, any indication as to the dates and places for the proposed visit of the standing committee?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference have now been drafted and are in the minister's hands for approval. They will be forthcoming when the minister returns to the house after his illness. As far as dates are concerned, I have already been conducting some surveys as to where accommodation may be obtained and where hearings may be held. The itinerary will also be forthcoming from the minister. These preparations have been under way during the past month and I will be holding a steering committee meeting tomorrow afternoon in my office to discuss this matter further. Notice of the meeting has gone out.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the hon. member for Hamilton West,
Inquiries of the Ministry who I think is just behind the curtain. In view of the hon. member's answer to the question about the standing committee on transport and communications, and in view of the fact that he dragged the Minister of Transport into his answer, can we be assured that the committee, as has been intimated by the government on many occasions, will be in charge of its own terms of reference and its own activities on the trip to eastern Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question which refers more specifically to the management of the committee, and it should not be asked at this time.



MURCHISON INQUIRY-REQUEST FOR DECISION RESPECTING TRUCKING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Has the government accepted or rejected the findings of the Murchison inquiry and, if so, is the minister prepared to make a statement at this time?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The government has neither accepted nor rejected them, Mr. Speaker. The government has not as yet had an opportunity to consider them. Representations have been made to me about the report by both employers and workers. On the whole the reaction to the report is highly favourable, but some suggestions for change and possible improvement have been made and these are being studied by the department. When conclusions are reached, they will be laid before the government.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the undoubtedly high competence of all public servants, so movingly described today by the Acting Prime Minister, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government has under immediate consideration a lump sum payment for those public service employees who are red circled, or other modifications to relieve the hardships of the classification review program?


Edgar John Benson: Without in any way admitting to



January 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
the facts contained in the statement that my Mr. Knowles: Perhaps the minister would hon. friend has made, I should simply like to like to know that we would agree with that answer his question by saying no.	suggestion.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-LOCATION OF NEUTRON GENERATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question of considerable importance to the people of this country. In view of press reports about the recommendation of the Science Council of Canada that an intense neutron generator be built at a cost of $150 million, and in view of press reports that the federal cabinet has approved the expenditure of $1 million to investigate a site which would provide an ample source of cheap power, what action has been taken on this question to date and has the minister received representations from mayor F. E. DeVito of Trail, on behalf of the regional district, that the Kootenays be considered for this site as being an appropriate one for the development of cheap power to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question should be placed on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. It relates to item 57 on the order paper which is a resolution introducing amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the government house leader can obtain an agreement from other parties, we in this party are prepared to take up this resolution as the first item of business today and pass it, because we are anxious to see the content of the bill.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a word with the Minister of Labour on this point to determine whether we can proceed today. If the bill is available we might consider following that suggestion early in the day.


Michael Starr: Perhaps we could pass it without debate.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government house leader whether after his conference with the Minister of Labour he has been able to arrive at a decision as to whether the government will proceed with the resolution concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act as the first item of business today, which we have indicated we will pass without debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for confirmation from the Clerk's office as to the availability of bills in both languages. I think there are a number of bills available, and if that is the case we will call the resolution and give the bill first reading, on the understanding that there will be no debate.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether Canadian and United States officials have met to discuss and review the U.S.-Canada automobile pact and, if so, has the minister anything to report to the house?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some preliminary meetings and they are continuing.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will the minister advise the house whether replacement parts are to be included in the revised pact?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is one of the issues to be discussed, Mr. Speaker.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the study referred to him a number of weeks ago on air pollution standards for motor vehicles in the United States in 1968 been completed as yet by his officials?

January 23, 1968	COMMONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to look into this matter right away.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who reports to the house for the Atlantic Development Board. Is he in a position today to advise the house of the names of those who will be appointed to the board to replace those board members whose terms have expired? If he is not in that position will he suggest how soon he will be able to make an announcement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the terms of a number of members expire today. We hope to fill the vacancies in a very short time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OBSERVERS FROM OPPOSITION PARTIES AT CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I believe the Prime Minister indicated that he was going to make an announcement relating to the forthcoming constitutional conference. Perhaps in his absence the Acting Prime Minister could tell the house what arrangements if any are being made for observers from opposition parties to attend the conference, and whether any background papers or a white paper will be made available to members of this house? I refer, of course, to material concerning the proposed bill of rights and other important constitutional issues.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Prime Minister indicated, he proposes to give further indication of what might be done. Preparations are under way for this meeting, and consideration is being given to the question of observer status. The Prime Minister himself will be dealing with this within a few days.
DEBATES	5843
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
SUBSIDIES TO UNEMPLOYED STUDENTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell us why the living allowances paid unemployed students are higher in the Montreal area than in other areas of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.

PROTEST BY STUDENTS RESPECTING LIVING ALLOWANCE On the orders of the day:


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has he received a telegram from some 200 O.T.A. students studying at the Manitoba technical and vocational school at Brandon, protesting the withholding of one week's living allowance immediately following the interruption in payments during Christmas week? If so, what action has the minister taken to resolve this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize that this is a matter of considerable importance and urgency to the people affected by the question, but I suggest to the hon. member that it is the type of question that ought to be directed to the minister in some other way.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. I would take this occasion to compliment him on his new appointment. Can the minister tell the house whether it is a fact that a number of companies in Winnipeg and other cities have had their records seized this month by investigators from the Department of National Revenue, although they are not accused or suspected of any irregularities in the payment of their income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.

January 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
In view of the fact that the minister responsible for ARDA co-operates with the provinces inasmuch as the latter ask the aid of ARDA, does the minister know or is he in a position to tell us whether the province of Quebec has asked for ARDA assistance concerning certain economic developments in northwestern Quebec?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: To my knowledge, not yet, Mr. Speaker.



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the reported administrative difficulties by two or more of the provinces with regard to the verification of applications under the Canada student loan plan, is the minister directing his officials to have discussions with the provincial authorities in order to protect the interests of the government of Canada under the plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion into consideration.



ANTI-TRUST PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNITED STATES FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and ask him whether his department has investigated the prosecution by the United States government of four or five of the largest drug manufacturers in the United States who have been accused of illegally cooperating to keep the price of antibiotic drugs at an abnormally high level, with a view to deciding whether to initiate similar prosecutions in Canada.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the house in response to a question on October 26, 1967, both the director under the Combines Investigation Act and I have been following the course of this case. As the hon. member may be aware, this prosecution was based on an offence alleged in the years 1953 to 1961 and most of this period is the one to which the general inquiry under section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act resulting in the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission report of January, 1963, relates. While this inquiry was therefore not directed to the offence provisions of the act, I am informed by the director that material obtained in the inquiry did not indicate the existence of a similar arrangement among Canadian companies. The director has, however, also been in touch with the anti-trust division of the United States department of justice to ascertain whether any disclosures in their proceedings indicate that there might be a similar situation with respect to Canadian operations.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the royal commission on farm machinery prices, or the minister's task force, be making public their respective reports in the next few weeks or before the rumoured recess of the house.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication from either of those bodies that they expect to make a report within that length of time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, which is indirectly related to the matter of housing. Is it the intention of the government at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference to ask the provinces to agree to a constitutional amendment which will give the federal authority the right to impose compulsory wage and price guide lines or controls, as proposed in a

January 23, 1968

resolution at the western Liberal conference at Winnipeg by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is such a large and involved question that it would require careful examination.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is it his intention to support a proposal of this kind designed to control inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: As my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker, this is a very involved question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and I think the house would appreciate this. I am sure that when decisions are reached they will be set forth in government statements in the house.



REACTION TO IMPOSITION OF QUOTA RESTRICTIONS BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his statement a week ago that the government would react in like measure on the same day if the United States government imposed border taxes against Canadian goods entering that market, will he give an equally definite assurance that the government will take similar action if quotas are imposed against Canadian goods entering the United States market?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question, as asked, is purely hypothetical.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at various times there have been statements emanating from the United States Congress that a substantial number of United States senators and congressmen intend to vote in favour of the passage of such a measure, and I would like to have the assurance of the minister that the government will take this action.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will recall that when I appeared before the
Inquiries of the Ministry committee of the house dealing with finance I placed before it and discussed at that time the resolutions on the Kennedy round which are now before this house. It is not now necessary for parliament to take any more action than this. I stated at that time the policy we would follow.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister simply assure me that the government will take similar action if import quotas are imposed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TOBACCO-IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. Can he assure us that there will be no more imports of South African tobacco into Canada, to make sure that this tobacco coming into Canada is not subsidized?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, that matter does not come within the responsibilities of my department-


Michael Starr: Then why don't you tell your members?


John James Greene: -but I will be very pleased to direct the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I direct to the Minister of National Revenue. I brought this matter to his attention yesterday and he indicated he might be prepared to reply today.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: I am not ready to reply today, Mr. Speaker, but I expect to be in a position to reply soon.


Michael Starr: You have learned the ropes quickly.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
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
January 23, 1988

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Monday, January 22, 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. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, at ten o'clock last night when I was discussing clause 2 of the bill before us I read from a letter addressed to Dr. Andrew Stewart, chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors in Ottawa, written on December 5, 1966, by the operators of the C.A.T.V. broadcasting installation at Wawa. I read the major portion of the letter pointing out the tremendous expenditures that these people had made on behalf of the C.A.T.V. subscribers in Wawa. I should like at this time to complete the reading of the letter. It continues as follows:
Should such authority be withheld, we shall have no alternative but to terminate our operation, incur a substantial loss on our investment in that community and deprive the residents of Wawa alternative TV programs which they have enjoyed for the past eight years, due only to the painstaking efforts on the part of our company which have brought us some really insignificant monetary rewards.

I should perhaps point out that there are at present approximately 1,000 dwellings in the town of Wawa and that we are serving 800 of these.
We hope and expect that when the application made to the Department of Transport by Northern Telephone Limited, for authority to discontinue the reception and relay of programs from station CJIC-TV Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and to replace them with the programs of station WWTV-TV channel 10 Cadillac, Michigan, when the proposed C.B.C. television rebroadcasting station at Wawa, Ontario begins scheduled operation, that you will take account of the facts herein above stated, and that you will see your way clear, in view of the special circumstances of our situation and that of the Wawa residents, to give favourable consideration to Northern's application.
Should you require any further information, I am of course entirely at your disposal.
Yours very truly, Gilbert A. Allard
This letter pointed out the situation existing in Wawa when the people in that town wished to bring in programs from Cadillac and Traverse City, Michigan, instead of from the Sault Ste. Marie station whenever the C.B.C. rebroadcasting station should start operating in Wawa itself.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter from J. R. Baldwin, deputy minister of transport, dated March 23, 1967, rejecting the application of Northern Telephone Limited. It reads as follows:
Your application dated June 24, 1966 for authority to replace the programs of station CJIC-TV Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario with those of station WWTV-TV Cadillac-Traverse City, Mich., at your land station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service at Montreal River, Ontario, for relay via your authorized microwave system to subscribers at Wawa, Ontario, has been considered in accordance with the minister's announcement in the House of Commons on July 22, 1964. The Board of Broadcast Governors has advised the minister that it does not support the application submitted by your company.
The application of Northern Telephone Company Limited having been turned down to bring in programs from Cadillac on an authorized microwave transmission system between Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa, there is now a C.A.T.V. installation in Wawa which is offering the people there the opportunity to look at programs from the Sault Ste. Marie station which is a C.B.C. affiliate while on the second channel on their C.A.T.V. dial they can look at C.B.C. programs coming from the rebroadcasting station opened by the C.B.C. in Wawa in December, 1967, or else they can get an indistinct picture of programs coming from Marquette, Michigan. I do not know of any other place in Canada where a C.A.T.V. operator has been given permission to bring
January 23, 1968

in the same program on two different channels to one community. This is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, and I can see no defence for it whatsoever.
As I mentioned last night, the B.B.G. must have given my respected friend, the Secretary of State, a high-sounding explanation when they stated that the application of Northern Telephone Limited to drop the Sault Ste. Marie station from its existing system at Wawa in favour of the channel emanating from Cadillac, Michigan, was rejected because the board felt the system should carry the available Canadian channel. Under these terms it is a marvel that they do not state that Canadian television viewers can only have one channel on their receiving sets so that they will not be given the opportunity of playing with the dial and receiving more than one program.
Here we have the same program being brought into Wawa by two different methods and the C.A.T.V. operators are told they cannot replace one of the two similar Canadian programs with an alternative United States program because the B.B.G. does not favour it. I said yesterday and I repeat again that if someone can show me any sense in that reasoning I wish they would give it to me in detail for I feel certain I could not understand any explanation that may be advanced to support the ruling rejecting the application of the Northern Telephone Company to bring in a United States station. I was reading in some detail yesterday the explanation provided by the Secretary of State for the rejection in the year ended March 31, 1967, of seven C.A.T.V. applications by the B.B.G. I made myself clear that I am indebted to her for her full report on the seven applications that were turned down by the B.B.G. On the other hand, the Minister of Transport, within whose field these applications came, gave no reason at all for the rejection of the applications.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Yesterday I mentioned the situation in Clermont, Quebec, and I should like to add some further details to the comments I made yesterday, January 22, as recorded in Hansard. As I have already said, in Clermont, Quebec, the C.A.T.V. application was turned down. According to the letter of the Secretary of State, the board turned down the application of Mr. Claude Lemieux of Baie St-Paul for a system at Clermont on the ground it would adversely effect the existing t.v. station there. The situation is that in the year ended March
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting 31, 1967, this application was turned down, and I have no doubt that it was turned down because of opposition from the existing t.v. station.
I had a little trouble ascertaining which t.v. station considered itself affected by this C.A.T.V. application. Clermont is about 85 miles east of Quebec city, and I could not visualize the broadcasting of television stations in Quebec city extending over a radius of about 85 miles in the first place. Chicoutimi seemed too far to the north for broadcasts to reach Clermont and I wondered whether it was a station in Riviere-du-Loup or Rimous-ki. On making inquiries it turned out that transmissions from Riviere-du-Loup could be received in Clermont on a community antenna television system.
When an application from a C.A.T.V. operator is received, automatically objections are raised by local t.v. stations which are not in favour of the C.A.T.V. application. They work on the presumption always that where there is a C.A.T.V. operation the size of the audience reached by the local t.v. station will be diluted because people will watch programs other than those of the one local station all the time.
The amazing thing about the situation at Clermont, Mr. Chairman, is this. The C.A.T.V. application was rejected because the board felt that it would adversely affect the existing t.v. station there. This decision was made in the year ended March 31, 1967, as reported by the B.B.G. in its report for that year. However, I am sure you will be interested to know that a C.A.T.V. application has now been favourably considered and that a licence has been granted to a C.A.T.V. operator in Clermont.
Why is this, Mr. Chairman? It is because since March 31, 1967 it has been made clear to the t.v. station operator at Riviere-du-Loup that a C.A.T.V. operator in Clermont can pick up his programs across the St. Lawrence river. His picking up these programs increases the size of the t.v. audience of the Riviere-du-Loup station, so now the operator at Riviere-du-Loup is all in favour of a C.A.T.V. operation in Clermont.
So out of the seven applications that were rejected, according to the letters of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport, in the 12 months ended March 31, 1967 this interesting situation now results. Despite the statement that two applications for C.A.T.V. operations in Pembroke would adversely affect the economic position of the existing
5848	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting t.v. station in that community, a C.A.T.V. licence has been granted in Pembroke, the C.A.T.V. station has been in partial operation, and by March 1 it will be in full operation.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, why the reasons given in the year ended March 31, 1967 held water then but do not hold water this year? Why would C.A.T.V. applications made prior to March 31, 1967 adversely affect the local t.v. station at Pembroke, according to the report of the B.B.G. and yet an application made since March 31, 1967 does not adversely affect the existing t.v. station at Pembroke?
The same might be said of the situation at Clermont. We have the statement that C.A.T.V. applications in that area were turned down because the local t.v. station had objected that they would adversely affect the existing station there. But in the year beginning April 1, 1967 an application was granted for a C.A.T.V. installation in Clermont so that the operator can bring in programs from Riviere-du-Loup.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a very thorough investigation could not have been made of the applications submitted in Pembroke and Clermont if prior to March 31, 1967 they were turned down for the reasons stated, namely, that they would adversely affect the economic position of the existing t.v. stations there, whereas since April 1, 1967 applications in Pembroke and Clermont for C.A.T.V. licences have been granted. You just cannot believe what you read in some official government statements and, after all, these are reports submitted to the ministers at their request by the B.B.G. The situation is intolerable.
I maintain that C.A.T.V. applications should be granted the moment they meet the technical requirements that are laid down by the Department of Transport. Any refusal of a C.A.T.V. application on other grounds constitutes a direct interference with the freedom of the individual to acquire knowledge and information where he can. And do not forget, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of C.A.T.V. applications the subscriber has to pay money to view the stations that are brought to him. It is a private commercial enterprise.
I think it would be very interesting to dwell upon this phrase the B.B.G. uses when it makes recommendations to the Minister of Transport, namely, that the application was rejected "on the ground it would adversely affect the economic position of an existing t.v. station". I ask you, gentlemen, as members of the House of Commons, how can a C.A.T.V.
[Mr. Cowan.l
DEBATES	January 23, 1968
station adversely affect the economic position of an existing t.v. station in face of the fact that C.A.T.V. stations do not accept or sell advertising space? The one source of revenue for the local t.v. station is advertising placed either by local businessmen or nationally by large organizations. The C.A.T.V. operator cannot accept advertising direct; he is not allowed to solicit advertising. The only source of funds for local t.v. stations is advertising revenue.
In view of this situation, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask this question. How can the local C.A.T.V. station affect the advertising revenues of the local t.v. station when it is not allowed to sell advertising and the local t.v. station is? The situation simply gets down to the basic proposition that when advertisers can prove to a local t.v. station operator that people are not watching his station but are watching programs brought in from outside stations by a C.A.T.V. operator, then those advertisers rebel at the advertising rates that are charged by the local t.v. station. That is a basic fact.
If people in Canada do not want to watch the programs put out by local t.v. stations, then why should the cabinet of Canada determine that they shall watch those programs whether they like it or not? The cabinet has not yet got around to telling the people what magazines they should read. The cabinet has not yet got to the point of telling us what newspapers we should read. So why has it adopted this sanctimonious attitude of saying; "We will tell you what stations you will watch"? Why should the cabinet say that there will be no C.A.T.V. installation in a given area because this would mean that the people in that area would watch programs other than those the local t.v. station operator is prepared to broadcast?
On this question of C.A.T.V. applications adversely affecting the economic position of local stations, I have asked this question before and I do so again: Since when did the cabinet of Canada enter the picture and guarantee that a licensee must make a profit? I have in my hand the Fowler report of 1965. This gentleman has investigated the broadcasting world of Canada on two different occasions. It is interesting to note the efforts to which some people will go in order to protect t.v. licensees and ensure that they make a profit. At page 251 of his report Mr. Fowler prefaces one section of his report with these words:
Our terms of reference specifically excluded community-antenna television services-
January 23, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	5849
Yet he proceeds to tell Canadians what is good for them with regard to C.A.T.V. operations. Some people might call this conceit; some might say that he has acted on the basis that he knows the answers to C.A.T.V. and therefore has told us what he thinks about it even though his terms of reference specifically excluded this matter. Mr. Fowler goes on to say:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
-but we inevitably found ourselves drawn into consideration of this complex subject because of its actual and potential effects on television generally.
In the course of his comments on page 253 one finds Mr. Fowler writing-


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


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I intend to spend a few moments today discussing an important task of the new regulatory agency which will be established under this bill, a task which the B.B.G., to my knowledge, has not performed, a task which is absolutely essential, namely, the examination of the activities of the radio stations of Canada, particularly the private stations, and the setting of standards of performance for any radio or television station in Canada that is granted a licence.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not make some comments about several speeches which we were privileged to hear or burdened with listening to-it depends on how you look at it-yesterday. Some of the speeches, to say the least, I found amazing. I am referring to the speeches made by the hon. members for Elgin and Red Deer. I congratulate the hon. member for Elgin on his wide-ranging speech which demonstrated to me that he had excellent technical assistance, as good as the assistance provided to cabinet ministers in Canadian governments by their executive assistants. In his criticism of the C.B.C. the hon. member for Elgin dealt with C.B.C. reporting of race problems in the United States, C.B.C. coverage of United States foreign policy and C.B.C. coverage of domestic politics in the United States. I find it hard to believe that any Canadian member of parliament who looks after his constituency and tries to follow legislation and estimates in the house, which must be followed and dealt with, has been able to find the time to become as knowledgeable about United States
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting affairs as the hon. member for Elgin seems to be.
The hon. member for Elgin has just left the chamber. I am sorry because I do not like to criticize an hon. member who is not here. Since he was here when I began speaking I shall continue. There was a remarkable similarity between the views which the hon. member for Elgin expressed and views which often appear in the Toronto Telegram under the by-line of Mr. Lubor Zink. There is nothing wrong with that. The hon. member for Elgin may agree with Mr. Zink. If the hon. member for Elgin did not have Mr. Zink's assistance in preparing his speech I can only conclude that two people in Canada have identical views on almost any subject one can think of.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Orlikow: 
An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


David Orlikow: I cannot. It so happens that I am a non-drinker. People are smoking more than they used to and, incidentally, I am a non-smoker myself. People, unfortunately, are using drugs. I may happen to think, as I do, that this is bad and that we should be carrying on an educational campaign to demonstrate this view. But the facts are there and there is no use hiding our heads and saying they are not. Members of parliament ought to be careful when they criticize radio and television not to leave the impression that because parliament is granting the money which the C.B.C. uses we are telling the people in charge, including the new directors, that they had better watch their step
January 23, 1968

and do as suggested, or they may be in
trouble.
One thing which has bothered me a great deal is the suggestion made by a number of hon. members-I heard it from the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and, I believe, from the hon. member for Rosthern-that the best thing to do would be to sell the C.B.C. lock, stock and barrel. I do not agree with this proposal. Moreover, I should like to say to the hon. members that either they have forgotten or they simply do not know what their own party in years gone by felt about this issue and what every government since the thirties has felt about it.
I want to remind hon. members to my right that it was a Conservative prime minister, Mr. Bennett, who said when the C.B.C. was established that Canadians had a right to a system of broadcasting from Canadian sources equal to that of any other country and that Canada must be assured of complete control of broadcasting from Canadian sources free from any interference. One cannot achieve these things which Mr. Bennett commended so eloquently in the absence of a publicly owned television system. I certainly hope and expect that the government will ignore the proposals which have been made so frequently by the official opposition that the corporation should be disposed of or its activities curtailed.
In the few minutes which remain to me I should like to deal with what I believe to be an important subject, a field which has been virtually ignored. I refer to the activities of private radio stations. When television began to develop in Canada in 1952 or thereabouts many people thought that radio stations would virtually disappear because people would no longer listen to them. Since that time nobody has been paying much attention to the affairs of the radio stations.
The fact is that the radio stations of Canada have never been so numerous, so affluent and so successful in securing advertising revenue as they are today. There seems to be no end to their growth. I have no objection to this. In 1952 there were 169 privately owned radio stations. In 1965 there were 281 such stations; that figure includes both a.m. and f.m. stations. It is true that television secured the lion's share of the total broadcasting revenue in 1965, the last year for which C.B.S. figures are available, but radio stations took in more than $70 million or some 42 per cent of total broadcastig revenues. Each year the sale of radio receivers exceeds that of television sets.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting That radio broadcasting is a profitable business is obvious if one studies the figures to be found, for example, in the Financial Post. One sees that the corporation called Selkirk Holdings, which owns radio stations in Lethbridge, Edmonton, Calgary, Hamilton, Victoria, Vancouver and elsewhere, has increased its profits in each of the past three years, that Standard Radio, which owns stations in Toronto and Montreal, has similarly increased its profits every year, that Western Broadcasting, which has stations in Vancouver and elsewhere, has similarly seen its profits increase. I have no objection to this but I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the following provision in the bill before us:
2. It is hereby declared that-
(d) 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 creative and other resources:
I point out that this applies to the entire broadcasting system, private as well as public, and that the words "creative and other" are underlined. I wish to ask the minister and the new officials of the regulatory agency to take a look at the record of the private radio stations which, certainly in the larger cities, have sufficient resources, as I have indicated, to enable them to do what is required of them.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I would like the minister to make inquiries.
I do not expect an answer today. We can put questions on the order paper and get the answers later. However, I would like the minister to find out what orchestra or orchestras were heard live on private radio in 1967.
I happen to like symphony music, but I do not expect a private radio station to hire a symphony orchestra. Private radio stations have built up their audiences by appealing to the young people-I am not being critical about this-by playing the kind of music which young people like. But why does this have to be done through the use of records only?
Private radio stations .are making money, and the new broadcasting legislation stipulates that they shall use Canadian creative talent. Why can they not be required to devote a certain percentage of their revenues to hiring live musicians? If Canada is to be a
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting real country it must have musicians, actors and writers. Why can it not be stipulated that as part of the price for having their licences, private radio stations, which again I say are making money, must use Canadian talent?
I would like to find out how many musicians were employed last year by private radio stations. I venture to say I could count them on the fingers of one hand for all Canada. How many operas were performed on radio? How many plays were performed live on private radio stations in 1967? I venture to say again that I could count the number on the fingers of one hand, if there were, indeed, any at all.
I would like the minister to find out what percentage of all the records played by private radio stations was made in Canada and featured Canadian artists and Canadian compositions. One has just to look at the number of Canadians who are working on the top shows in the United States and Great Britain -I am not being critical of them-to realize how many of them have left Canada. Why have they left? Because we did not encourage them to stay.
Unfortunately every year is not 1967; every year is not centennial year. I wish to give the government and the Secretary of State a great deal of credit for the excellent job they did in centennial year, but why can we not encourage Canadians who are creative and have a contribution to make to Canada to stay in Canada? We cannot encourage them if we are going to permit the private radio stations to be simply money-making propositions. Of course, the hon. member for York-Humber has an entirely different view. The hon. member for York-Humber would argue-


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my hon. friend might get his information from the hon. member for York South, who acts for ACTRA.


David Lewis: Who acted for ACTRA.


David Orlikow: Yes, the hon. member for York South has acted for ACTRA. I have acted for them and I have close relations with them. We can get the information from them but if I were to present that information here I do not think the Secretary of State would accept it as very authentic or official. ACTRA is a private organization which has its own axe to grind on behalf of its members. I think this is a task for the new regulatory agency. I hope the minister will take my suggestion


seriously and urge the members of the new regulatory agency to look into this question.
As I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, radio stations greatly outnumber television stations in Canada. In 1965 there were only 65 television stations in Canada. Therefore it is not unnatural that of the total of almost 9,000 people employed almost full time in broadcasting, over 5,000 were employed by radio stations in that year. Canada's 281 radio stations took in over $70 million in broadcasting revenue in 1965 and showed a net operating profit of over $7 million. Without resorting to a slide rule it is apparent that the average percentage of profit on total broadcasting revenue was about 10 per cent, but consideration must be given to expenditures, depreciation, etc. Even more important, there is a vast range in the profitability of stations. One cannot compare the popular stations in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver with stations in Portage la Prairie or Corner Brook, Newfoundland, if indeed there is a radio station there. Therefore one should expect much more from the large stations. I suggest that this is a task which the new regulatory agency should pursue closely.
There is just one more point I would like to raise. Although I do not particularly like it I have no objection to the kind of programming which private radio stations do. Obviously they do the kind of programming which their listeners want to hear. I have no objection to the music they play, although I think they might devote some time during the week to more serious music. I do not even object to their open line programs, although I find it amazing that in each city in Canada where there is a private radio station there are two or three experts on every subject. The person conducting an open line program can give a quick answer about sex, drugs, liquor, cigarettes, about any matter which any unidentified person may telephone and comment upon.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Everybody is an expert on some of those.


David Orlikow: However, I would hope that the new regulatory agency will look at the amount of advertising carried by private radio stations. Since the minister has referred to ACTRA I want to refer her to the spring 1967 issue of the ACTRA magazine. It contains a centre section reporting on a survey they made one day of the amount of advertising carried by a whole series of private radio stations in different Canadian cities. It shows
January 23, 19G8

that on radio station CJON in St. John's, Newfoundland, between 8 and 10 a.m. and 2 and 4 p.m. on the day in question 26 per cent of the time in those four hours was devoted to commercials. On radio station CJAD, Montreal, in six hours that day, between 8 and 10 a.m. in the morning, 2 and 4 p.m. in the afternoon, and 7 and 9 pm. in the evening, 24.4 per cent of the time was devoted to commercials.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am told that was a bad day.


David Orlikow: You mean they did not have enough?


David Lewis: Told by one of the owners?


David Orlikow: That may be. On station CKGM in Montreal, which must be a pretty poor station, in four hours only 16.3 per cent of the time was devoted to commercials. I do not know how they manage. Station CFRB, Toronto, in a six hour survey devoted 21.9 per cent of the time to commercials. Station CHUM, Toronto, in a six hour survey devoted 26.5 per cent of the time to commercials. Station CKY in my own city, Winnipeg, in a two hour survey devoted 24.2 per cent of the time to commercials. I could continue but I think I have made my point. In any case the minister and the officials of the new regulatory agency should look into this matter. When 25 per cent or more of the time in any hour is devoted to commercials I think it is a bit much. I know that the regulations provide for a fixed amount of time for commercials, but that is for a 24-hour period. What happens is that there is very little advertising from midnight to 8 a.m. when nobody is listening.


Mr. Jamieson:: That is excluded.


David Orlikow: I defer to my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo. He is much more expert in this field than I am.


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


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, may I have one more minute to complete what I have to say?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is this
agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate some of the things which I think the

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting new regulatory agency should do. I am hopeful, as we all are, that the C.B.C. will improve under new management and I hope that a year from now the new regulatory agency will have done the job which I think is long overdue.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Had this legislation been passed before Christmas, Mr. Chairman, I am sure it would have been dealt with much more expeditiously by the house. Certainly I had not intended to speak during the course of the debate because we were represented on this side by a capable committee which was handling the matter with great efficiency.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You are still represented.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: However, Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the discussion I must speak briefly. I am able to speak briefly because I am not equipped with any of the research facilities which were referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Everything I say today will represent entirely my own thinking and interpretation in respect of this matter. I agree that private members of the house do not have the research facilities which when used sometimes result in long tedious speeches, and that they do not is perhaps best for all concerned.
I enter this debate mainly because during the Christmas recess, as I presume was the case with most hon. members, I was called to many meetings in my constituency. We had been away for a long time sitting almost continually here in the House of Commons. There were many matters which constituents wished to discuss with their members as a result of that long absence. This applies mainly to those of us from the more distant parts of Canada who do not have an opportunity to keep as closely in touch with our constituencies as those who live closer at hand.
I found a strong wave of protest across the country on many matters. In fact I have never attended so many protest meetings in all my years in the house. I can tell the government there are many unhappy citizens across this nation in respect of many policies or lack of policies. No doubt those who were in the central part of Canada during the week end when the leadership candidates were there were made aware of this spirit of protest personally during their sojourn in the city of Winnipeg.
The one meeting I attended relating to the particular subject before the committee at the
5854	COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting moment was convened by a committee in the city of Brandon which calls itself the committee for better broadcasting. I, along with other interested citizens, met with this committee for a period of some four hours. In fact the meeting went on until midnight and would not have broken up at that hour had there not been the problem of time. I discovered that this committee, which actually had been formed to protest monopoly broadcasting in southwestern Manitoba, in reality was more concerned about the quality of broadcasting than any other subject. This was a spontaneous protest which arose following the recent hearings before the B.B.G. with regard to a second channel television service in southwestern Manitoba.
The committee was formed for the purpose of opposing any extension of monopoly in broadcasting. In response to a newspaper advertisement some 4,000 citizens communicated with the B.B.G. to express their feelings on this important subject. As I say, while the main item of concern was monopoly broadcasting, both radio and television, it turned out at the meeting I attended that the citizens were more concerned about the quality of broadcasting by both the private broadcasters and the C.B.C.
It is not necessary for me to enlarge on some of the matters which were brought before that meeting. In the interest of brevity I should add that the following day the chairman of the B.B.G., Dr. Stewart, arrived in the city of Brandon. A special meeting of the board was convened at which the board was represented by Mrs. Sweatman and the chairman. During that board meeting the members of the board were subjected to a repetition of the experience which had been mine on the previous evening. Therefore, without bringing the matters before the house in detail I can assure the responsible minister and members of the committee that the B.B.G. has been fully informed concerning the problem.
I do not know whether this was an exceptional circumstances in Canadian broadcasting affairs but I do know that there is a very enlightened electorate in the Brandon-Souris constituency. I would imagine that other members have had similar experiences, if not before a special committee, at least through correspondence and other forms of communication. I want to emphasize that the quality of broadcasting both by the C.B.C. and by private radio and television services is of great and growing concern to the people in southwestern Manitoba.

January 23, 1968
It is natural that there should be this type of public reaction because broadcasting both television and radio, is a comparatively new facility in the area of communication and as electronic mass media they are having a growing impact on the thinking of the people and therefore on the public policy of the nation. Even though we have had broadcasting for a comparatively short space of time, actually just over a quarter of a century, we know what can be accomplished by the skilful use of this mass media.
Mass media is a vital and integral part of the whole modern process of brainwashing which is a part of our psychological stock in trade today. While the hidden persuaders still use the printed word, to a growing extent I would say that they are resorting to mass media in order to engage in subtle forms of hidden persuasion at the subliminal level which motivate much of our way of life today. In the political area we have the example of what took place in nazi Germany where a monstrous authoritarian regime was able to maintain control. In addition to removing the normal processes of parliamentary democracy they were actually able to obtain the support of the masses by_ manipulation through the skilful use of radio broadcasting. We are all aware that President Roosevelt for many years was able to maintain a strong influence over the electorate in the United States even though most of the major newspapers of that country were opposed to his policies. He was able to do this through his fireside chats. Through his skilful use of broadcasting he maintained this influence over the people of the United States.
e (4:20 p.m.)
If this is true of radio broadcasting it is much more true of television because television has a double or even multiple impact as a result of hitting all the senses at once. It is even suggested that in the not too distant future we may have "smellovision", which will add another sensory impact to those which have already been achieved.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Some smell already.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: There is a smell now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We know that many outstanding personalities have been moulded and have evolved in Canada by reason of their exposure on television. Indeed, some of our television personalities who appear regularly on this mass media have a greater impact on the nation than even the political figures.
January 23, 1968

Pundits become household words across the nation by reason of their exposure on the idiot box, as it is referred to sometimes.
I was sadly disillusioned a year or two ago when I had someone assisting me who had had a certain amount of local television exposure. I found he was better known than I and that everyone wanted his autograph even though I was the candidate campaigning for re-election. They were more interested in this gentleman because he had been singing cowboy songs on television. I am not sure what moral that has for me as an aspiring politician. We are also aware that Mr. Laurier Lapierre, who has had considerable television exposure, is aspiring to political leadership in this nation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He says he will be the first socialist prime minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure his exposure through the means of television is going to have considerable influence and impact on his contemplated political career. I do not want to pursue this thought further, and if I am going to maintain my vow of brevity I must move to the next point.
There have been criticisms that C.B.C. broadcasting policy and private broadcasting activities have a less than desirable influence on our Canadian society. I am inclined to agree with that because the mass media does reflect a trend toward increasing urbanization in Canada. I served on the broadcasting committee away back when-a long time ago. One of the points I repeatedly brought before the committee was that in C.B.C. programming local interests are not represented. Most of the programs originate from big metropolitan communities such as Montreal and Toronto, and to a lesser extent Winnipeg and Vancouver, with the result that inevitably there is going to be an influence reflecting the process of urbanization in this country, and urban influence is a secular influence. It is a materialistic and often sensuous influence. Anyone who has visited the C.B.C. broadcasting centres in Toronto and Montreal soon discovers that gathered there are groups of artists and programmers who are completely caught up in the secular urban trend under way throughout the entire western world.
Someone referred to what Oswald Spangler said in his writings after world war I, that the inevitable drift from a predominantly rural society to a secularized, industrialized, urban society will bring about drastic changes

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in values. It is this trend that several members have protested against during the course of the general discussion at the committee stage.
There is very little spiritual or religious influence in mass media communications at the present time. This not only applies to the arena of broadcasting but to all our other social institutions as well. Someone has said that the only spiritual uplift modern man is capable of today is that which he derives from the pursuit of the cocktail circuit where he becomes filled with spirit and as a result enters into new dimensions. We might also add to that the resort to pills, sexual thrills, and all the other things which are part of the western urbanization of today. This trend applies to all the other social institutions as well.
It is for this reason, I am sure, that the late Governor General Vanier felt compelled to establish the Vanier Institute of the Family. He was aware that this basic social institution was being profoundly eroded by the secular drift that is under way in our so-called western civilization. Perhaps this is not the time to refer to this, Mr. Chairman, but very shortly we will be debating amendments to the Criminal Code, just as we have recently debated divorce reforms. This indicates that the family as a social institution today is no longer the healing place of the soul as it used to be in more stable times. It is the breeding ground for divorce and delinquency. This is the important point which was brought to our attention by the Vanier Institute of the Family. Anyone who has read the recent writings of Dr. Wilder Penfield will quickly come to the conclusion that these are the problems which concern him. Our mass media of communication as well as the basic social institutions have come under the influence of the inevitable drift toward a secular, urban society.
If time allowed I could deal with education as well because changes are taking place in our educational system. In the old Victorian days, referred to I think by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, it used to be reading, writing and arithmetic that were taught. This apparently has been changed by the addition of another category. It is now reading, writing, arithmetic and rioting. There is a great protest emanating from our educational institutions at all levels. I am sure hon. members noted the recent caustic comments of Malcolm Muggeridge who resigned as chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, one of the most
January 23, 1968


demonstrated forcefully by the chairman of the board, Dr. Stewart, who came all the way out to Manitoba just two weeks ago, bringing with him the Manitoba representative on the board, to see for himself the reasons for the protests that had arisen in southwestern Manitoba. I trust that the new regulatory body, the C.R.C., will have the same interest and zeal in pursuing a more excellent course for broadcasting. I am sure it will if Dr. Stewart and those who have been associated with him in the past are retained on that board. I am quite optimistic concerning these matters. I am not too concerned that sometimes local, private broadcasting stations abuse their privileges. We all abuse our privileges; it is the nature of homo sapiens, sometimes referred to as homo the sap. But eventually there is a reaction and we And the citizens deciding for themselves that all is not for the best. Then they take the initiative and eventually the quality of broadcasting is elevated. As a result the quality of life as manifest through mass media communication is raised accordingly.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, toward the end of his remarks, the previous speaker, if I understood him correctly, quoted Malcolm Muggeridge as being somewhat disillusioned with the youth of today who, according to Mr. Muggeridge-at least, I understood Mr. Muggeridge was being quoted and they were not the words of the hon. member-are concerned more with sex and pot and not with the finer things with which they were concerned in Mr. Muggeridge's day. I take issue with Mr. Muggeridge on this question. I think what we are in fact witnessing today, which is perhaps in some degree reflected on radio and television, is a much more open society in which there is a greater opportunity for a far greater number of people to express themselves both intelligently and unintelligently. Sometimes, therefore, in reference to mass media, particularly television, people are upset when they hear views expressed which are not their own. I believe that if television is to be a meaningful instrument in society this trend will continue rather than diminish because television must reflect the changes that are taking place in our modern society.
Another factor that I think we find upsetting about the mass media is that in the period 50 or 60 years ago or whenever it was-I suppose it was not that long ago-that Mr. Muggeridge was talking about the world of ideas was limited to those who had education
January 23, 1968

and they were relatively much smaller in number than is the case today. It was limited to those who had access to books. I think we would find among the intellectual community, if that is the correct term, of 50 years ago as much depravity as we find among the intellectual community today. I do not know that the morals of the intellectual community, if one can find such a community, have really changed in the last 50 years.
Perhaps what has changed more than anything else is that we have become more democratic and the average citizen is able to be exposed more to all facets of life and has a little more time to pursue the finer as well as the not so fine aspects of life. I believe this trend is being expressed in one form or another on the mass media. There is a certain group of people in our society who have preconceived notions of how it must operate. These rules are not always applied to themselves because the alteration of that sort of strict code can be permitted for the few. But if there is any danger that the masses may indulge in the same way of life this, of course, can be upsetting.
To put it another way, I think our criticism of the mass media is sometimes more the result of uncertainty about the consequences of the changes we are experiencing. Naturally, television as a mass media must be part of this picture. I suppose it can be said that when there is an unknown quantity many people may be concerned. Perhaps there are those who, while they may argue on the one hand that this trend is good because it is democratic and open, say that in fact television as a mass medium can be used by a particular group which has a particular philosophy about society to exploit or perhaps unduly influence society. Therefore I suppose one of the real dangers in the policy of broadcasting is an imbalance in this connection. A proper balance must be maintained.
I think it is safe to say that up until now there has been an imbalance in this area. I do not think the reactionaries of the country feel they have the same opportunity of expression as others. I do not know whether they have; I have not monitored all the programs. However, I suppose it may be said that some of the views allowed to be expressed on the mass media tend to be what may generally be regarded as the more progressive and sometimes we do not hear enough of other, more reactionary views. I suppose that in all fairness there ought to be some kind of balance and there is undoubtedly therefore, at least

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting theoretically, a danger present in the broadcasting media.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
While the issue of broadcasting has been with us since the beginning of broadcasting and will continue to be with us, I think that what we are in fact talking about is society itself and how the mass media reflect it. My particular reason for speaking in the debate today is to deal with two matters that are of concern to me. One has to do with public broadcasting policy with regard to the extension of service. I am concerned about the fact that in the development of broadcasting in this country-and I intend to go along with some of the things that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris said in this regard-there is a danger that the large metropolitan centres will control the mass media more and more to the detriment of some of the other regions of Canada.
We all recognize, I believe, that it is in the larger centres that the greater opportunities exist for people in the arts who would like to have their talents displayed on television. But at the same time I feel that in viewing the policy of the Canadian broadcasting system there is reason for the valid criticism that over the years the C.B.C. has not always and at all times adhered strictly enough to the view that one of its primary functions is the extension of service. I know that certainly a great deal has been done in this area, but in 1968 we find that a great many Canadians still do not enjoy the modern advantages of television. So it is a little annoying to these people to hear about large expenditures and great public buildings going up while at the same time they do not enjoy the benefits of a service.
Let us take my own province as an example. One of the things for which the former member representing Burin-Burgeo fought during his entire period as a member of the house was public broadcasting in his constituency. To this day there is no public radio broadcasting in his constituency although there are two private radio stations which operate there. The same goes for television, although in the case of television the private broadcasters at that time did not have a station in the province of Newfoundland. However, in the case of the south coast of Newfoundland, the example of the initiative of private enterprise vis-a-vis the C.B.C. is a telling one and warrants criticism. The same situation still exists today so far as television is concerned in my own constituency which is
January 23, 1988

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting never more than 100 miles at any point from the city of St. John's. There are a number of areas there which do not enjoy television coverage, and this is even more true of other areas in Newfoundland.
The second matter which I believe has regional overtones concerns the policy of public broadcasting so far as the development of Canada on a regional level is concerned. Again I think the C.B.C. is faced with a serious problem in this respect because there are only so many dollars to be spent and there are a great many ways to spend them. At the same time, those of us who come from the periphery of Canada and do not live in the great metropolitan centres have more than a legitimate complaint that too much of public broadcasting is controlled from these centres. This is bad for a number of reasons. It is bad because it reduces the opportunity for a number of people to participate. Therefore in a quantitative sense it is unfortunate. Second, it has a qualitative effect because if public broadcasting is concentrated, as it is, in one or two large metropolitan centres it is more difficult to achieve the diversity which could be obtained if there were greater autonomy or greater opportunities at the regional level.
I believe there is a relationship between culture, art, drama and geography. The hon. member for Essex South mentioned fog. Although he may never have seen it physically he should have more knowledge of it in a metaphysical sense than most hon. members in the house. I would have thought the hon. member for Essex South would share my views because I would not think that Windsor is one of the great metropolitan centres of this country.
The qualitative effects to which I referred are due to the fact that, as I said, culture, art and drama are related to geography. Therefore I believe that a greater emphasis should be placed upon the development of talent in regions other than the metropolitan centres. It is not solely the responsibility of television to undertake the development of talent. Opportunities can be provided in many ways. However, I feel that television must play an important role. I was pleased to note last night that the C.B.C. broadcast a program which originated from St. John's, Newfoundland. I am sure that those hon. members who did not see that program will have heard about it because there are few parts of Canada as rich in folklore and culture as the province of Newfoundland, unless it be the province of Quebec. I contratulate the C.B.C. for its production last night. However, I think
[Mr. Cashin.I
that greater emphasis should be placed in the future on the development of talent in the Atlantic provinces and also on providing opportunities for the development of talent in western Canada. Not only would this be justified on the basis that it opens the media to more people but also because it can have a qualitative as well as a quantitative effect. Not only will new people be brought in but I believe that people from the different regions of Canada will have an effect on the quality of the programs.
There are certain attitudes or certain factors which may perhaps make for a greater diversity in programming. Obviously one of the facts of life in Canada is our regional and cultural diversity, and I think the C.B.C. has a role to play in its development. We speak a great deal about national unity. I hope that national unity does not mean we should all become the same and, so far as television is concerned, become more and more like those who live in Toronto or Montreal. It would be a great advantage to Canada, not only so far as television is concerned but in many other areas, if greater opportunities were given to people in the more distant areas of Canada.
Let me refer to the program "Viewpoint" as an illustration of the policy. It so happens that very seldom do we see people from the Atlantic provinces appearing on that program. I have made some inquiries, not official but quite informal ones, and it would be safe to say that the C.B.C. has had some difficulties in using people from the Atlantic provinces on that program. This was the impression I received. If this is the case, then I think it is a reflection on the efforts of the C.B.C. and perhaps more than anything else it spells out an attitude of mind that may lead us to believe that Canada extends from York on one side to Humber on the other.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is from sea to sea to sea.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I hope that the future policy of broadcasting in Canada will take this factor into account. I do not wish to be unduly critical because I recognize that there are many legitimate problems involved in developing talent in different regions in Canada, but the somewhat elusive . problem which bothers those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces is that although facts and figures can be produced to show otherwise, basically there exists an attitude of mind that part of being Canadian is the task of making sure that a minimum standard of service is provided to the outer regions of Canada because they are
January 23, 1968

part of our country. So often we are not really seized with the real conviction that Canada extends from sea to sea and that, for example, there is no country that would not benefit from having Prince Edward Island. There are some who may not think so but, although there are only 100,000 people in Prince Edward Island, in a qualitative sense the population of that island and their way of life enrich this country. If that is true of Prince Edward Island, then that analogy pales into insignificance when compared with the greater island of Newfoundland.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I feel that the Canadian people are not being given the proper opportunity to enjoy the full advantages of being Canadian and experiencing, however vicariously, the great pleasure and honour it is to live on Canada's Atlantic coast. I hope that the C.B.C. in its future policies will perhaps take these factors more into account and become really seized of this matter instead of regarding it as their duty to allot us a certain minimum time every once in a while.


Mr. Priitie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to commend the hon. member for St. John's West for the first part of his speech. I did not mind the last part and all that blarney that we listened to, but in the first part of his speech he pointed out what I think was a modern point of view about morals and life today compared with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris and others. I should like to say a few words about this question.
Before I do so, Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me the white paper on broadcasting, 1966, prepared by the House of Commons standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. I notice that it was presented to the house on March 21, 1967. I am one of those who were active members of the broadcasting committee. I sat through almost every minute of its hearings when the committee was reviewing the white paper, when the bill was drafted and sent back to the committee for review, and again in the house I have listened to almost every minute of the debate.
I have restrained myself from speaking for most of the time but it now seems to me that if we get through this broadcasting bill by June we will be doing rather well. I have come to the conclusion that it is rather pointless for me to sit here listening as the debate goes on to many things with which I disagree and to continue to remain silent. Therefore I
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting am going to make a small contribution at this time. Perhaps the first anniversary of the report or the bill will soon be reached and we shall still be debating this subject.
At this point I want to refer in particular to a theme which has come up in the speeches of a number of members. I refer to the speech made before the Christmas adjournment by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I also noticed the same theme in the speech of the hon. member for Kinders-ley, in the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern, in the speech of the hon. member for Acadia, and particularly in the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Red Deer. These speeches had to do with, I suppose, morality or morals in broadcasting.
I think the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris referred to the sensuous quality of broadcasts, that sort of thing which is perhaps related to the kind of thing the hon. member for Acadia referred to earlier in his speech, the type of scenes that he may have viewed in some programs broadcast by C.B.C. television. I think here of the broadcast of the program "The Ernie Game" and the other film "Waiting for Caroline", the kind of program that deals with love and sex, couples in bed and so on. Some hon. members would have us believe that there are thousands of people in Canada who are up in arms about this kind of broadcasting. I do not doubt hon. members at all when they say that they have received letters of complaint on this subject. No doubt the headquarters of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have received similar letters as well. However, I represent a constituency with 120,000 people, an urban constituency largely, and I may have received three letters on this subject.
The answer is not that these people do not watch C.B.C. television because surveys show that about 30 per cent of the people in the lower mainland area of British Columbia regularly watch the local C.B.C. television station. So from a constituency of 120,000 people which is situated in an area of 800,000 people this one member has received two or three letters on this subject. It does not seem to me that there is very much dissatisfaction with the type of broadcasting the people are getting. Therefore I believe that the views expressed by the members to whom I have referred do not represent the views of the majority of the Canadian people.
It seems to me that these members share the point of view of a lot of people who seem to think that our society is going to hell and that our morals are slipping. The people who
5860	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting hold this point of view quite frequently support it by quoting statistics of the number of illegitimate births, the number of divorces and that type of thing in support of their contention that society is going down hill. They seem to yearn for the Victorian age when they think that everything was better. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris referred to it as the good old Victoria days. Many of us think that it was the age of hypocrisy and that the people were not so good. If we accept the point of view of these members that the morals of our society are slipping and that things are not the way they were in the good old days, then let us discuss t.v. programs in that context.
When we talk of t.v. programs that deal with morals or sex, the kind of subject matter about which the hon. members have complained, we are not talking about many hours during a week. We may be talking about the Sunday night public affairs program on occasion, which lasts for one hour. We may be talking about the program "Festival", which is another hour. But we are not talking about very much more than that. The rest of the viewing time is given up to comedy shows, variety shows, public affairs, news, sports. So we are speaking about two or three hours of television a week at the most. I suggest to the committee that if our morals are slipping and the situation is so bad, then we must look somewhere else than to television for the reason. Because two or three hours of television a week, even of the worst sort, cannot be making that much of a contribution to the decline in moral behaviour.
I suggest that we should look at our total environment. We should look at the books that are being sold in the stores every day. I am not talking of the kind of books that only moral deviates would buy; I am talking of books that can be purchased in respectable bookstores, in drugstores and at our leading airports. I refer, for example, to books like "Valley of the Dolls". I asked one book dealer what kind of people bought these books and I found it was not just young kids who may be looking for a thrill. The buyers cut right across the whole spectrum of society. Respectable middle-aged people are buying these books. I suspect that throughout our history people have always been interested in books which have a little pornography in them. These books are purchased by people who are considered to be quite normal in our society. I suggest, there must be some reason why magazines such as Playboy enjoy such wide

DEBATES	January 23, 1968
circulation. It is not only deviates or abnormal people who buy them; in fact they are to be found in the homes of many respectable families.


An hon. Member:: And in the parliamentary library.


Robert William Prittie: Somebody says it is in the parliamentary library, Mr. Chairman. I did not know that. I have seen Esquire in the reading room but not Playboy.
Again, Mr. Chairman, looking at the total environment let us look to advertising both in newspapers and magazines and on television which depicts scantily clad ladies advertising various types of underwear. I myself have no objection to this but if our morals are slipping, as people say, then this sort of advertising has something to do with it.
I suggest we should also look to our movies. We must remember here that ideas of censorship have been changing over the years. It used to be the case that in the days of the Hays office married couples in bedroom scenes always had to be shown in separate beds. This has changed; things are changing all the time. People are not shocked by this. There is nothing wrong with it. Why pick on two or three hours of television a week as contributing to the so-called decline in the morals of our society?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Here, Mr. Chairman, we have an attempt at censorship. Some are saying "Tighten up; don't show that sort of thing." With all due respect to my hon. friend from Red Deer, I suspect he would want nothing more sexy than Anne of Green Gables on television. This amounts to censorship. It does not matter whether we have a board of censors or whether we tell the management of the broadcasting companies to do their own censoring. To be consistent we should have censorship all along the line. We must censor advertising, we must control the sale of books and what goes into books. Advertising can be very suggestive, whether it appears in newspapers, magazines or on television. All communications media would have to be controlled. If this sort of thing were tried in today's 1968 society it would fail utterly. People would not accept it.
I do not accept the view that society is going to hell, as some hon. members seem to think. Rather, I agree with what the hon. member for St. John's West said. Some aspects of life which hon. members do not
January 23, 1968

like to see portrayed are simply more apparent and open than they were before. Hon. members have only to read the biographies of some of the leading lights of the Victorian age to realize that the upper classes and intellectuals were not all that good. They did not practice all the Victorian morals.
We have a more honest and open society today and there is no reason for that not to be reflected on television just as other aspects of our society are reflected there and elsewhere. I want to see a television system which is open and frank in its portrayal of our society. There are laws in this country to deal with anything that goes too far, whether it be in the printed or the visual media. Those laws should be the only restriction.
I make these points particularly for the benefit of the new president and new executive vice president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps the corporation does need tightening up so far as economy is concerned. I do not know. That is a matter for experts. But I hope that they leave their creative people with a free hand to broadcast. I hope they are free to innovate and experiment. If ever the day comes when members of parliament do not rise to their feet and complain about something the C.B.C. will be a tame organization indeed.
I am really tired of listening to hon. members who act as if they speak for the majority of the Canadian people. I do not think that the majority of the Canadian people object to a few sexy scenes on television. They seem to like those scenes in books and movies, which seems to be a perfectly normal human reaction that has been pretty consistent throughout history.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on a point that was raised in the rejection by the Board of Broadcast Governors of C.A.T.V. applications for licences for a number of centres in Canada and the B.B.G.'s concern that they would interfere with the economic viability of local television stations. I wish to pursue that subject further along the line of asking when the cabinet of Canada adopted the attitude that television stations must show a profit each year, even though that means restricting the freedom of access to information and knowledge of the Canadian public.
I made reference a short time ago to the report of Mr. Robert Fowler, which is popularly known as the Fowler report on broadcasting. I was quoting from page 253 of his 27053-370^
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting report in which, though his terms of reference excluded C.A.T.V. operations, he made comments that were not required under his terms of reference. On page 253 he said:
There are, however, many single-channel areas where regulatory policy to nourish or support the licensee has been negated by the sudden intrusion of a number of new signals which dilute the audience and damage commercial support.
The question now arises, why does the Canadian cabinet consider it necessary to provide a financial profit for a television station in the face of the sudden emergence of competition by a C.A.T.V. installation in the area that the local television station is servicing?
I have a brother who was the publisher, for Lord Thomson, of a paper in the Timmins area, the Timmins Press. When he was appointed publisher of that paper by Roy Thomson, as he was then, there was no television station in Timmins. There were applications in hand by the C.B.C. to issue television licences in Timmins. It was well known that television applications had been forwarded to the C.B.C. But did the Canadian cabinet go to the locally established newspaper in Timmins and ask them whether it would be economically viable for them to continue to publish in Timmins and service the general public there if a television station were licensed? Not on your life. The local newspaper in Timmins could sink or swim, according to the financial support it could engender for itself in Timmins, after a television licence was granted.
A television licence was granted to a station in Timmins and the local paper did not object. They were going to live despite the competition, and the television station went on the air. It drew off a tremendous amount of advertising revenue from the local business firms and from national advertisers, but the local Timmins Press continued to publish and continued to show a profit. Why did the cabinet not say to the television applicant, "You cannot operate a station in Timmins because that will adversely affect the economic viability of the presently established mass medium in Timmins?" But no, they licensed the television station.
When a C.A.T.V. operator comes along and wants to operate in an area where a television station has already been established he is told, through the medium of the Board of Broadcast Governors: "That will adversely affect the local television station; you must not go there and adversely affect the local television station. We do not mind how much
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting speakers on the matter. In the white paper on broadcasting reference is made on page 7 to the right to freedom of expression, which it says should be unquestioned. I have already emphasized the fact that this begs the whole matter because having the right to freedom of expression where the public does not have the right to receive that expressed opinion is a denial of the right of the individual to receive information from whatever source he so desires.
Then at page 13 of the white paper we read:
Among the matters subject to regulation-will be the inclusion of Canadian channels-
No C.A.T.V. installation in Canada is in the position of not having available all Canadian channels on its dial. When the statement is made that among the matters subject to regulation will be the inclusion of Canadian channels this is a soft way of stating that we are going to do our best to keep American channels off C.A.T.V. installations. I point out that C.A.T.V. is making such rapid strides at the present time that there are now wires available that will carry 30 channels to the individual dial of a C.A.T.V. subscriber. In this way the Canadian government could demand that every television station in Canada be placed on the dial of the local C.A.T.V. operator, even though he cannot pick up all the stations as most of them would be too distant for reception. But the new wires will carry 30 channels now.
There is one operation in South Carolina at the present time with 23 channels available on one wire. So, when the statement is made in the white paper that "among the matters subject to regulation... will be the inclusion of Canadian channels". I would like to add that with these wires now carrying up to a total of 30 channels there is no problem in carrying all the Canadian channels in a specified area. If the viewer wants to look at them he can. If he does not want to look at them then he does not have to look at them.
On the first page of Bill No. C-163 we And it stated that "the right to freedom of expression ... is unquestioned." But the public is denied the right to receive freedom of expression over C.A.T.V. stations. As recorded in Hansard of November 1, 1967, page 3747, the Secretary of State said:
-broadcasters must be allowed the right to freedom of expresion; that is to say, censorship and pre-editing of programs are not only undesirable but impractical.

They certainly are undesirable and in large measure they are impractical, but what is the use of having freedom of expression without censorship if the public is not allowed to look at the programs they want to look at because they are denied a C.A.T.V. franchise in the areas in which they live?
Then we find on page 1348 of the minutes of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for December 1, 1966, that Mr. J. A. Ouimet, president of the C.B.C. told the committee:
Community antenna television (CATV) is to be made part of the broadcasting structure.
When he made that statement on December 1, 1966, it was interesting to many people in the broadcasting and receiving field in this country because no definite statement had been made in that regard prior thereto. I have in my hand a release from the C.B.C. information services, 1500 Bronson avenue, Ottawa, dated January 16, 1967, about six weeks after Mr. Ouimet's statement on community antenna television, and I wish to read it to the committee. It reads:
For Your Information.
The following statement by President Ouimet was released to the Canadian Press in Ottawa; C.B.C. newsrooms; and dailies in Toronto after 7.40 p.m. January 14, 1967:
The C.B.C. is deeply disturbed by the violence of the reaction to its invitation to Mr. Adolph Von Thadden to be interviewed on the program "Sunday." The invitation was based on the rise of Mr. Von Thadden's party in Germany as reported in the news media recently.
Then there is this paragraph:
The greatest safeguard of the democratic tradition is the freedom to express and examine the widest range of ideas and opinions. A prime function and responsibility of the C.B.C. is to provide for the free expression and scrutiny of points of view thus enabling the Canadian people to judge such views for themselves.
Mr. Ouimet never made a more forthright or more honest statement than that contained in that second paragraph in which he said:
The greatest safeguard of the democratic tradition is the freedom to express and examine the widest range of ideas and opinions.
In this broadcasting bill we are told that the freedom of expression is unlimited, but the government does not go along with Mr. Ouimet's statement, namely:
The greatest safeguard of the democratic tradition is the freedom to express and examine the widest range of ideas and opinions. A prime function and responsibility of the C.B.C. is to provide for the free expression and scrutiny of points of view-
January 23, 1968

He did not stop, like this bill does in clause 2, with a mouth-filling statement that freedom of expression is unquestioned and is to be allowed. He went on to say "free expression and scrutiny of points of view." By denying the Canadian public the right to look at programs of their choice over C.A.T.V. installations, which do not fall within the public domain as they do not use radio frequencies which are in the public domain, we are denying the public the right to examine the different points of view and opinion available and to scrutinize points of view, even though we tell the broadcaster he can say what he likes because his freedom of expression is unlimited. But unfortunately the recipient is limited in his choice of scrutiny of programs available on C.A.T.V. installations. In his press release Mr. Ouimet continued:
I must therefore announce the withdrawal of the invitation to come to Canada and telegram to this effect has been sent to him.
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
I am mighty glad to know that the corporation will not abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information. But the cabinet is abrogating its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information when, through media such as this proposed council, C.A.T.V. installations will be prohibited from going into certain areas because they will dilute the audiences of the local t.v. stations. The right to information is curtailed when a C.A.T.V. system is placed in the position where it may not be granted a licence.
I have read many references to freedom of expression as though it entirely covered the subject. Free expression is only half of the subject of free speech. The other half is the freedom to hear.
I would like to make a brief reference now to a certain situation which agitates the people in the Toronto-Barrie area. If you look at this bill as amended and reported by the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts you will find that in clause 19 on page 10 no change whatever has been made in the regulations that make it possible for the cabinet to move the Barrie t.v. station into the Toronto area. Clause 19 is headed "Hearings and Procedure." It states:
A public hearing shall be held by the council (a) In connection with the issue of a broadcasting licence, other than a licence to carry on a temporary network operation-
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
It goes on to state:
A public hearing shall be held by the council, if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing, in connection with
(a) the amendment of a broadcasting licence-
You will notice that qualifying phrase, that a public hearing will be held by the council "if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing in connection with the amendment of a broadcasting licence." As a member for a Toronto riding I am vitally interested in the problem raised by the desire of the owners of the Barrie television station to move into the Toronto area and thus interfere with the clear reception of programs now coming from Buffalo. I resent very much that in this new broadcasting bill no effort is made to restrain the authority given to cabinet to amend a broadcasting licence, which means moving it from one city to another if they so wish to do, because this t.v. station in Barrie has a licence. If the executive committee of the proposed new council is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to hold a public hearing they can just amend the broadcasting licence of the Barrie station and let them move wherever the new council may desire to let them move.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In that connection you will be interested to know that under clause 23 on page 12 there is a subheading "Setting aside after reference back to Council". The Barrie t.v. station application, as no doubt members will recall, was referred back to the Board of Broadcast Governors for further consideration when the subject became too hot to handle. I will not mention for what people it became too hot to handle. In any event it was referred back to the B.B.G. for a new hearing. In subclause 4 of clause 23 we find this interesting statement:
The issue, amendment or renewal by the council of any broadcasting licence that has been referred back to the council pursuant to subsection (1) and confirmed pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) may be set aside by order of the Governor in Council made within sixty days after such confirmation.
There you have it straight and unadulterated. If the cabinet does not like the recommendation of the council the recommendation may be set aside by order of the Governor in Council made within 60 days after such confirmation. In Toronto we understand that the Barrie t.v. station has been sold to western interests.
586S
January 23, 1983

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


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


Mr. Patterson:: across the country. For instance, I have one here from Olds, Alberta, signed by quite a number of members of the congregation of the particular organization. I also have a copy of a resolution passed by a church organization calling attention to this same matter. I should like to read one paragraph:
Whereas the C.B.C. is a government institution supported by our tax money; and whereas the C.B.C. is preoccupied with programs which contribute to the breakdown of marriage and the home, pseudo-educational programs concerning sex and sexual perversions, programs of violence, and programs that use questionable and profane language;
We...wish to express that we deplore the calibre of certain programs shown and heard on the C.B.C. network, a corporation that receives money that we have paid in taxes.
I have another communication from the Calgary Evangelical Ministerial Association. Let me read a paragraph from this letter which was directed to the president of the C.B.C. board of governors. It says:
Whereas the C.B.C. is the national voice of the nation and as such helps to set the moral standards of the country and whereas the show "Waiting for Caroline" shown locally in Calgary, Alberta on Wednesday 29th November, 1967 within the "Festival" series was extremely objectionable morally, we, the Calgary Evangelical Ministerial Association, a body composed of some eighty (80) ministers of churches in this city and representing better than 20,000 people, do strongly and solemnly protest this particular program.
Later in the paragraph this is stated:
As taxpaying citizens we do deplore $511,252 being paid for the production of this film and do demand that the moral tone, in deed, word and total content of C.B.C. programming be such as is healthy, wholesome and morally acceptable.
I have also received a number of letters from individuals, a sampling of which I have here, but I do not intend to take up the time of the committee this afternoon by reading them.
Let me point out that programming is a matter of serious concern to people across the country. Those who will be charged with the responsibility in the days that lie ahead would do well to give consideration to the various protests that have been launched and endeavour to do something about the type of programming that is being beamed into our homes at the present time.
It has been argued that if too many restrictions are placed upon creative individuals they will leave the corporation and their talents will be lost. If those responsible for such indecent and morally destructive programs quit I suggest they would be doing a service to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and it would be a blessing to the whole nation. On my own behalf and on behalf of individuals and organizations who have contacted me in this regard I protest the use of the facilities of a crown corporation, supported by the tax dollars of the Canadian people, to glorify crime and evil and to seek the destruction of the moral foundations of our nation under the pretext of entertainment and public information.
There is one other matter I want to deal with briefly and it has to do with the financing of the corporation. We must concede that if Canadians want a publicly owned radio and television service it must be financed. We have no quarrel with that idea and we do not argue with it. I do not think that this involves just financing or that financing is what is griping the Canadian people at the present time. I believe that what is involved is the use of taxes for the type of programming being carried across the nation. If the C.B.C. is to be financed it must merit financing.
Statements have been made today about taking to task those who have raised objections to certain C.B.C. programs. The hon. member for Elgin brought some of the weaknesses of C.B.C. programming to our attention, particularly in respect of the presentation of current issues. We have heard references to the preoccupation of the C.B.C. and its programs with the seamy side of life. When we put all this together we must realize that a great number of people across the country wonder whether, in view of this record, the C.B.C. should be maintained or financed by the Canadian taxpayers.
Let me voice my strenuous objection to the proposed long term financing formula for the C.B.C. until the corporation indicates its ability to act in a responsible way and until it proves to the public and parliament that it merits support. The hon. member for Winnipeg North, when speaking today, said he did not think the corporation should be placed in the position of being told that if it does not measure up it will not receive finances. I do not think there is anything basically wrong with that idea. If any organization or agency of any corporation is to be financed by the taxpayers' money surely the representatives of the taxpayers should have something to say about its operations. I do not think there is anything obnoxious about the idea that the C.B.C. should be responsible to someone for the way it conducts its business and spends the taxpayers' money.
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond had something to say about censoring C.B.C. We are not talking about that; we are talking about getting C.B.C. to accept a sense of responsibility. That hon. member also pointed out that there are many books on the bookstands and other types of material available which present the seamy side of life. Let me say to him that he may be right but the taxpayer is not necessarily subsidizing that type of thing. We are objecting to the fact that tax money-people are being taxed now beyond their limit-is being used in a way which will destroy the very institutions in which we believe. I do not blame the taxpayers for protesting.
For these reasons I felt I had to express the views of those with whom I have discussed this matter. I might add that they are also my views. In spite of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has said we have the right, the responsibility and the duty to represent those who have sent us to Ottawa by speaking on their behalf.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a question of policy which I think is fundamental to this clause of the bill. I came into the house yesterday and was given to understand that the hon. member for Lapointe had moved an amendment to clause 2 (b) of the bill. This is what causes me to rise today. I must say frankly that whenever the hon. member for Lapointe moves an amendment I am rather suspicious, but I found later that I had no reason to be suspicious in this instance. The hon. member moved an amendment which I think means more so far as policy in respect of private stations is concerned than anything that is now included in the bill.
I have followed the work of the committee and I want to compliment its members on the work they have done in studying this measure. They have made a careful study of the bill, have gone over it very thoroughly and have made proposals for amendments. We must realize that this committee represents the intellectual elite of the house, I am informed.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It contains learned members of the legal profession, one of whom has been, I understand, an attorney general and would consider all measures with a fine-tooth comb. The committee also includes a very progressive member of the clergy who is


extremely interested in this type of legislation. I compliment the committee for its interest in this measure and its interest in culture generally. I pay tribute to these gentlemen for their dedication to bringing culture to the masses of the people of Canada.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, on reading the committee reports I found what in my opinion was an oversight on the part of the learned members of the committee. These distinguished and learned people-I use the word "learned" in respect of them although I think farmers should also be entitled to that appellation even though they only produce the food that people eat and the country depends on them-overlooked one factor in the bill. The committee voted unanimously for clause 2(b) which reads:
(b) the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
I have been informed that the hon. member for Lapointe moved an amendment that would substitute the word "shall" for "should". Over many years I have heard the exact meaning of words discussed in respect of legislation before the house. I am entering this debate as a person who has not had the opportunities that many other hon. members have had for education, cultural development, and so on. I am approaching this question purely as a backwoodsman, you understand, Mr. Chairman.
I referred to the dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word "should". The two dictionaries which I consulted referred me to the word "shall" and I found in one case a column and in another a column and a half of definitions with respect to its meaning. I have heard this subject discussed on many occasions, namely, the exact meaning of the words "may", "would", "should" and "shall" and after reading the definitions I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to say what is the exact distinction between the words "should" and "shall".
I admit frankly that I have not had the opportunities of many distinguished gentlemen in the house, but in my opinion the word "shall" connotes more of a moral imperative than the word "should". On that account I support the hon. member for Lapointe on this occasion, though I differ with him fundamentally in his philosophy in respect of other matters. I will vote for his amendment which would substitute the word "shall" for "should".
January 23, 1968

I have got into quite a bit of trouble in this respect and can quite understand the failure more or less of this distinguished committee, comprising the hon. members I have mentioned, to pinpoint the exact definition of the word "should" and why they voted unanimously for this clause of the bill. I rise only to point out that these things can happen in a distinguished house like this and in a committee composed, as I said before, of the intellectual elite of the house.
As one who has not had their opportunities, as I have said, it is my opinion that in this case they were wrong. I expect that when the vote is taken we will find them voting to change the word "should" to "shall" because they believe, like me, that it is a greater moral imperative than "should".


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about the fact that no change has been made in this proposed bill in the regulations that allow a member of the cabinet to okay the movement of a television station from one place where it is licensed to another at the whim of the cabinet member, as is now the case. I stated that the people of Toronto are watching with a very jealous eye the efforts being made to move the Barrie station into the Toronto field where it will interfere with the reception of two stations from Buffalo that are watched by a large number of Canadians day after day after day.
I believe that when a new bill such as this is being brought in, complete authority should be given to the new council and it should not be hamstrung in its decisions and activities by some saving clause, if that is the proper phrase, which allows the cabinet to override any decision it may make with regard to the granting of a licence. Clause 23 of the bill contains a side-heading which says "Setting aside or reference back to council." It gives the Governor in Council authority to set aside decisions made in respect of any broadcasting licence. The Governor in Council, of course, is nobody else than the cabinet.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.
Pipe Line Across International Boundary PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

['Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare has no specific program on this subject but it has assisted provinces in a variety of ways for many years. This assistance has included grants for services, for training of personnel and for research studies related to the problem of alcoholism. In addition to this support, and in keeping with the modern attitude which considers alcoholism as a disease and a personality defect, the mental health division has given the subject continuing attention over the years in the following ways:\n(a)\tPublic education. The division has produced a ten page pamphlet entitled "Alcoholism", in both English and French. This pamphlet has been issued for use by the provinces through the health educator and has had rather wide distribution.\n(b)\tA film, "Profile of a Problem Drinker", sponsored by the Ontario department of health was produced a few years ago through mental health grant funds and professional co-ordination of the mental health division.\n(c)\tA survey, "Government Programs on Alcoholism", a 90-page study of the activities in some foreign countries, sponsored by the mental health division and prepared by an international authority, the late Dr. E. M. Jellinek.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.', 'Wednesday, January 24, 1968']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 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; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Health and Welfare-inquiry as to a campaign on the dangers of alcoholism.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that Interprovincial Pipe Line Company through its United States subsidiary, Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc., has received a presidential permit covering the construction of additional pipe line facilities across the international boundary.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Although Interprovincial's pipe line system was progressively built to serve the prairies and Ontario, in the course of the years the company has acquired customers in the United States extending from the Saint Paul-Min-neapolis area to Buffalo, N.Y. Increasing demand in all these markets has required a substantial increase of Interprovincial's facilities. In order to meet anticipated demand in Ontario and elsewhere in 1968 and for subsequent years and to restore the reserve
5870	COMMONS
Pipe Line Across International Boundary capacity it normally carries for national and international purposes, the company has to undertake further expansion immediately.
In view of this further expansion Interprovincial considers it desirable to loop its facilities east of Superior, Wisconsin, south of its existing line, before re-entering Canada. The first step contemplated by Interprovincial is the construction of a 34-inch line from Superior to the Chicago area, to be completed some time in 1968.
In the near future, probably in 1969, Interprovincial will construct a 30-inch connecting line from that area to Port Huron to complete the loop. The timing of such further construction would depend on a number of matters, including the terms and conditions under which the Tecumseh and Buckeye systems are available to Interprovincial in the meantime, and the rate of growth in demand in the areas served by Interprovincial. I would expect that Interprovincial will proceed immediately to the construction of its new facilities.
The house should also be aware that the Aurora-Glacier pipe line system, which transports oil from Alberta into Montana, is currently undergoing expansion. This expansion is associated with a further presidential permit, which has been issued.
These programs of expansion of facilities were included in recent discussions on oil with the United States authorities which, as the house knows, take place periodically. These discussions and exchanges are used to explore the potential levels of our exports as well as the relationships of our two countries on oil matters generally. From these conversations come the mutual confidence which facilitates the efforts of our industry to increase exports while avoiding disruption of United States markets. The recent discussions have been no exception to this rule. An important feature contributing to the framework of agreement which came out of our meetings was the clarification that Interprovincial has planned its expansion with a view to the future as well as to immediate markets. A similar element of pre-investment is also present in the expansion program of the Aurora-Glacier system.
I am sure the house would wish to commend the industry and the pipe line companies for their initiative regarding the projects to which I have referred. They will have the effect of placing our industry in a sound position to meet the future requirements in Ontario and United States markets in an efficient

DEBATES	January 23. 1968
and economic manner. These projects are also a manifestation of the ability of government departments and agencies on both sides of the border to resolve matters of common interest in an atmosphere of good will.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian private company, Interprovincial Pipe Line, should be congratulated for being able to get into the Chicago market. In the first stage this will increase our exports into the market by approximately 50,000 barrels a day and it will go some way toward balancing the deficit which exists between our imports and exports, with resulting benefits to Canada's balance of payments. While welcoming this announcement there is one point I have to emphasize, namely, the fact that we still lack from the government a statement on a national oil policy. In the original oil policy statement of 1961 we declared unilaterally as the Canadian government that exports from Canada should approximate imports into the Montreal and maritime markets. That was the first principle in the national oil policy. The second principle was that our producers should be allowed to produce at their maximum rate of efficiency which should roughly equal that of the United States independent producers. The statement of 1961 succeeded in increasing our exports to a point where they almost balanced our imports.
Since 1963 there has been no statement from the government regarding the objectives which private enterprise should meet in implementing this oil policy. It must be admitted that the pressure on the United States government by independent companies in the United States to restrict their country's market has made it difficult for us to deal with that government. The Israeli-Arab war of last year broke the dike, and now I think the United States government recognizes the inherent dangers. The decisions that have been made in the last year with regard to our resources have enhanced Canada's economic position immensely.
The economics of today's announcement are sound. As Alaska oil moved into the west coast of the United States it made it more difficult for our western Canadian producers to enter the northwestern American market. So it is only natural for us to allow Alaska oil to move into the west and to move our oil into the mid-west regions of the United States. The pipe line extension from Superior to Chicago will allow us first entry into that
January 23, 1968

market through the pipe line, and the extension from Port Huron to Sarnia will assure people in Ontario that their immediate needs in the next few years will be met by this increased capacity.
From the viewpoint of a Canadian nationalist I believe that this announcement is good for Canada. As the minister said, it is also good for the United States. I believe that Canadians will have to live with the fact that if we are to get the maximum and best use of our resources we must think and talk in terms of mutual advantage to both countries. The primary rule should be that prices should be as low as possible for the consumers in all parts of North America and therefore products should move into the best markets. The midwest market is a good market for western oil.
The second rule which should be followed is that producers should be allowed to obtain the best price they can realize for their fuel in the competitive markets. The movement into this field has brought new opportunities in the last two years for Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan to find markets in a natural and economic way. This move by Interprovincial Pipe Line is not only sound economically but also fits into what I conceive to be the basis of a national oil policy which the government should announce. I hope the government will take cognizance of the advice that we have been trying to give them for the last four or five years, namely, that in the interest of all Canadians and of the whole North American continent the government should periodically state its objectives in the national oil policy, keeping in mind the criteria I have mentioned.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be quite as lyrical about the minister's announcement as were both the minister and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), not because I have any objection to an increase in our oil exports to the United States but because I have an uneasy feeling that to commend Interprovincial Pipe Line for doing something which will bring it a pretty good profit is not the work of parliament or the government. To suggest that Interprovincial Pipe Line did this for some altruistic motives seems to me to be a little wide of the mark.
However, I note, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said when he spoke as a Canadian nationalist, which I believe is true of all hon. members, that there is a suggestion in the statement that the purpose of this expansion
DEBATES	5871
Pipe Line Across International Boundary is to meet the anticipated demand in Ontario and elsewhere in 1968. However, the anticipated demand in Ontario will not be met in 1968, as is pointed out in the minister's statement, but may be met in 1969 when the looping will take place.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the meantime, before the second phase is concluded the company will be using two networks which already exist in the United States, the Buckeye and the Tecumseh systems.


David Lewis: To bring oil to Ontario?


Jean-Luc Pepin: These systems will service the Toledo-Detroit area and could bring surplus up to Port Huron.


David Lewis: I am glad to have that statement. However, this does not depend on the expansion in Ontario for which no date is given. The minister inserted in his statement the words "probably in 1969".
I think the most important point to note in this announcement, one which has been true for many years as the appendix to the copy of the statement I have in my hand points out, is that our exports over the years have been very much less than our imports and that this state of affairs will continue. What we are doing by this arrangement, which no doubt is a cartel division of markets as well as an intergovernmental understanding, is to export oil from the west through the United States and to import oil for the Montreal market and other eastern markets from Venezuela through the international oil companies.
As the table shows, Mr. Speaker, in 1966 Canada imported 596,000 barrels of oil daily and exported only 386,000 barrels daily. Whether the gap in dollar outflow compared with dollar inflow will ever be closed remains to be seen in the years ahead.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask my hon. friend to compare the growth of exports and of imports?


David Lewis: I am sorry, I cannot hear the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the minister that we are not debating this announcement. A statement has been made on motions and the house should not embark upon a debate.
5872	COMMONS DEBATES	January 23, 1968
Pipe Line Across International Boundary


David Lewis: I was pointing out that we in Canada, it seems to me, would be a great deal better off if we were able to arrange our affairs by perhaps building a pipe line direct to Montreal, thus being much less dependent on imports of oil from other parts of the world. This is particularly so in view of the very large oil reserves that we have in our own country. I have never been able to understand why governments should greet with pleasure exports which are more than matched by imports that necessarily cost us hard currency. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have always suspected that this is the result not of any intergovernmental good will but of the action of a cartel existing among the companies to divide up the markets in North America in the same way as internationally the same companies divide up the markets in other parts of the world.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think this constructive measure is a step forward in the use of our tremendous natural resources. The increase in our oil exports to the United States will no doubt enable us to improve our deficit trade balance with that country.
The Montreal area, as well as other Canadian regions, should first benefit from our oil resources; however, it must be recognized that we have agreements with other countries at present and that we must transact business with them. That is probably why we are buying oil from Venezuela and from other oil producing countries.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that private enterprise shows beyond doubt that it is anxious to serve the interests of the nation even though my hon. friend for York South (Mr. Lewis) says that the companies will make profits. I believe that they will show profits and will develop our resources more profitably than any government could. In fact, their operations will be profitable, whereas a government body would show a deficit. This is shown everywhere, even in Saskatchewan where a socialist government, at one time, led the province without achieving a balanced budget.
So, I think we should congratulate private enterprise for showing initiative and developing natural resources in order to serve the best interests of the country, because it will use Canadian manpower, Canadian material, while encouraging the producers of our country.

That is why I feel that instead of minimizing and crushing private enterprise because it is making profits, a responsible government should rather help private enterprise to develop our natural resources, so that they will serve first the Canadian people, while the surplus can be exported abroad.
In this particular case, that is our petroleum exports to the United States, I am convinced that these will help us balance our trade deficit with that country.
I believe that this measure augurs well and will contribute to the welfare of the Canadian people as a whole.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I should like to express our satisfaction with the announcement that has been made tonight with regard to the arrangements that have been entered into by the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to increase their sales potential in the market south of the border. I think that one of our great handicaps in Canada has always been the problem of working against the logical direction of trade and communications by forcing upon the country as a result of its very nature an economic burden. The development outlined this evening whereby we actually reach directly south into the market in Montana and also by a much shorter route into the market in the Chicago area is good economics.
This move really does not make much difference now because I think that oil is not just a national resource but caters to an international market. If we can export our surplus oil to markets which are much closer to the source of the oil in Canada and thus use credits established thereby to supply the demands of our own markets in more distant areas, then this is a logical and sound principle to follow.
Therefore I think we should support the remarks of the minister and also those of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), because this kind of arrangement is just good business for Canada not only with regard to the export of our surplus resources but also in so far as the economics of transportation and general marketing are concerned. We share the satisfaction that has been expressed with this new arrangement which Interprovincial Pipe Line has been able to effect across the border.
January 23, 1968


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand for the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate on second reading which commenced on November 2 last year. When the proceedings were interrupted at that time I had the floor and a brief recapitulation of what took place then may remind us of what we were dealing with.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) made a brief presentation on second reading which was in keeping with the consideration this bill had been given by the banking and commerce committee of the Senate. At the end of the hour I had been referring to the international ownership of this company and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, by way of clarification, said something. I did not think he should have made his remarks in the way he made them because I did not want even the briefest remark of the hon. member to close the debate. I wanted an opportunity to say something more.
I wish to read what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said because, should he ever have the opportunity to close the debate on second reading, he may wish to elaborate on what he said. He said, as reported on page 3814 of Hansard for November 2, 1967:
For the information of the hon. member this company is a Canadian company, originally incorporated in Manitoba in 1906, and subsequently incorporated under chapter 70 of the statutes of 1910. The original company, Eagle Star, was a British company.
My interpretation of those remarks may be wrong but I took them to mean that the British Northwestern Insurance Company, to which the hon. gentleman is referred, is a Canadian company. Later the hon. gentleman referred to Eagle Star and he said that the parent company was British.
I may have misunderstood the hon. member because I did not appreciate that British Northwestern Insurance Company was a Canadian company in the sense that it is owned and controlled in Canada by Canadians. The contrary was my understanding. I
Private Bills
wish now to quote an extract from the proceedings before the banking and commerce committee of the Senate on June 28, 1967. The committee was considering this bill. I shall quote from page 29 of the proceedings where I find the remarks of Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance, which, incidentally, were not challenged in any way by anyone who attended that hearing.
In passing I might add that one other person spoke before the committee, a Mr. James Hugessen who is listed as a parliamentary agent. The chairman asked him if he had anything to add, to which Mr. Hugessen said, "No, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add." That was the extent of his evidence.
Mr. Humphrys, whose remarks were not challenged in any way, said:
The British Northwestern Insurance Company is a federal company, having been federally incorporated in 1917, but it started earlier as a provincial company. It is owned by the Eagle Star Insurance Company, a prominent British company with worldwide interests and a very large volume of business.
I understood that only two companies were involved in this bill, the British Northwestern Insurance Company and the Eagle Star Insurance Company. One of the purposes of the bill is to change the name of British Northwestern Insurance Company to Eagle Star Insurance Company of Canada. That name would closely approximate the name of the British parent company and would bring with it all the benefits of having a similar name.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said, "this company is a Canadian company." That is without meaning. The company may have been incorporated under federal law or under the statutes of a province, but since, according to the evidence of Mr. Humphrys, it is controlled in the United Kingdom it is not a Canadian company.
When the hon. member interjected the hour had almost expired and I did not have the opportunity to pursue his remarks. At the time his comments seemed a little odd and on reading them later they still seemed odd. On November 2 I said that if the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace wanted to interrupt me by using the procedure of asking a question I would be glad to accommodate him. But the time expired and the opportunity did not arise. It has arisen now. In any event, I hope the hon. member will wait until he has the opportunity to close the debate before taking advantage of any opportunity that may arise for him to speak.

January 23, 1968
Private Bills
The approach to this company ought to be the approach adopted with respect to other companies that are foreign owned and controlled and which seek to do something in this country through bills that come before this house. It is well known that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has a particular view on the question of foreign ownership. He has enunciated it in the past. He was speaking as Prime Minister and not as a private individual and his remarks carried the force of the government itself. He said that the Canadian government is partial to the promotion of Canadian ownership of our resources and wealth.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I believe that as long as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) remains in office this will be the view taken by the government. But this stand may change early in April, on the 10th or the 11th, or some such date, and it may be that tthe new prime minister will not share this opinion. Incidentally, the new prime minister may not even be able to sit in the House of Commons for some time after that date. He may decide that the sources from which he derived the support which enabled him to assume office were such that he ought to take a more tolerant view regarding this question of the control of insurance and other companies. However, for the time being we must abide by the attitude which the present Prime Minister takes toward this question of foreign ownership, an approach which the hon. gentleman who used to be minister of finance-I do not recall his present office-also used to adopt.
Some years ago this parliament enacted as law certain alterations to the legislation governing insurance companies, requiring that some of these companies, depending upon the date of their formation, must be Canadian owned rather than foreign owned or foreign dominated. Thus the Canadian parliament itself has taken a stand on this question of Canadian ownership.
In my opinion, this reflects the feelings of Canadians themselves. I should like to point out that there is a mechanism by means of which the British Northwestern Insurance Company could bring itself within the purview of public law and establish itself as a Canadian company in a true sense. This mechanism was used voluntarily by the United Investment Life Assurance Company which earlier had a bill before this house and which is currently before the Senate. The

company came to parliament and said voluntarily that it desired to become a full Canadian corporate citizen, even though the original bill for which it had petitioned contained no such provision. That company, therefore, proposed in a memorandum to the committee which considered the legislation that within two years of the commencement of business it would make a public offering to Canadian residents of a sufficient number of shares to bring its share ownership to below 75 per cent. I relate this, though it applies to an entirely different bill, merely because the relevant wording could be extracted and incorporated in the bill now before us by a simple process of substitution.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should proceed any further until there is a quorum in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. T. S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: Despite the public position of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with regard to the question of the ownership of business and natural resources in Canada, it does seem to me that Canadians continue to indulge a predilection for shipping out not only our resources but our money in the delusion that we shall thereby continue in a state of prosperity and economic well-being.


Mr. Peiers:: There is no quorum, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It has been drawn to my attention informally that the attendance is somewhat below that called for by the rules. I am not raising this as a point of order but merely by way of comment, because I think the bill before us is an indication of the Canadian predilection to which I have referred.
This measure appears to have a double purpose. According to the explanatory notes, one of them is to change the name of the company and the other is to expand the capital stock of the company. I have decided to address my remarks largely to the second purpose, the proposal to expand the capital stock.
This is a proposal brought before us by what is, as my hon. friend has pointed out, a foreign company despite the fact that it is legally incorporated as a Canadian firm. In these circumstances I suggest it is a matter worthy of careful consideration by hon. members before they decide whether or not the bill should be approved. The proposal here is
January 23, 1968

to raise the number of shares from 50,000 to
125,000,	each having a par value of $40. This represents a substantial expansion. What does it mean in practical terms?
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
It means that any of the surplus which may come into the till as the result of these operations, presumably expanded operations because of the proposal to enlarge the scope of the company and its capital stock, will represent an additional amount of the savings of the Canadian people to be siphoned abroad. From time to time, I and some of my colleagues have attempted to argue in connection with certain other bills that to assent to such a proposition is clearly to aggravate what is already an unfortunate situation so far as the Canadian economy and people are concerned. We have said that far from approving any expansion of private insurance companies in this country, parliament should be taking a stand to call a halt to that expansion. Increasingly, the kind of operations they conduct are an unnecessary and wasteful appendage to the economy of the country.
We have had debates in this house about the expansion of public pension plans. The Canada Pension Plan is a good case in point. During those debates some of us became increasingly aware of the source from which the major opposition to any such plan was stemming. Among other sources, it was coming from the private insurance interests in Canada. On the one hand we have parliament, rather painfully and slowly, struggling to implement measures that will serve the common good of all the Canadian people, and on the other we are being asked to approve and pass bills of this nature which strengthen the hand of the very economic and financial interests that have been seeking to slow down and prevent the enactment of laws to provide adequate public insurance programs.
If I understand correctly the evidence given before the Senate banking and commerce committee, this company operates largely in the field of automobile insurance. It is not in the life insurance business. We do not have across this land any adequate system of public coverage for the hazards of automobile operation, hazards both to the owners and to pedestrians. I believe this is the direction in which we should be moving rather than lending our approval to giving added power and strength to private automobile insurance interests which, in my view, have been conducting a very expensive and
Private Bills
wasteful operation in so far as providing protection is concerned.
I find it astonishing that members who support the government, and after all this is the government that sponsored the Canada Pension Plan measure, can reconcile their positions in acting as sponsors of bills of this nature with their support of measures such as the Canada Pension Plan. These measures have the support of other members of the house but they like to laud them as accomplishments of the party to which they belong. It is time we made up our minds about which direction we are going to move, whether we are to continue the aimless expansion and multiplication of these private insurance companies, placing increased economic power in their hands with which to further their industry, politically and otherwise, or whether we are going to put a halt to that trend. One of the ways in which we can put a halt to that trend is to refuse to pass bills allowing these companies to expand and increase their powers.
This becomes all the more pointed when we realize that we are placing this power in the hands of financial interests that lie beyond the borders of our country.


Mr. Allmand:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Certainly.


William Warren Allmand: Does the hon. member realize that the purpose of this bill is to replace four insurance companies, which belong to the same group, with one insurance company? Three of the companies were fully British companies, whereas the one that will replace the four is a Canadian company, although it is partly British owned.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not sure I am in a position to answer completely the hon. member's question. He may have information concerning this proposal which I do not have. In his introductory remarks he did not cover the question which he has asked me, and I have not found an answer to it in the evidence given to the banking and commerce committee of the Senate. In fact, my reading of the brief bit of evidence given to that committee indicates that this company, leaving aside the question of the juggling of various corporations, will remain a company owned and controlled by a large British insurance firm or complex of firms.
I cannot see that the point the hon. member has raised in any way alters the validity of

January 23, 1988
Private Bills
the argument that I have been making. I am not quite certain whether the hon. member is suggesting that this increased capitalization is simply to enable one company to take over the stock of others. If that is the point he is driving at, it is not made clear in the evidence given to the Senate committee. The explanatory notes say that one of the purposes of the bill is to change the capital stock from 50,000 shares, with a total value of $2 million, to 125,000 shares with a total value of $5 million. That is a very substantial expansion of the capital stock of the company, two and a half times an increase in valuation and number of shares. In any event, whether or not that is the case the basic argument I am making still stands.
In my view it is not in the public interest to pass measures to enable private insurance companies to expand and multiply the fields of their operation, as we have been asked to do by this and a veritable barrage of other bills in recent months and years.
I am trying to say something which I have not said before. The facts of the matter are that within the tussle for the Canadian savings dollar it is becoming increasingly evident that there is a real conflict between what is in the public interest and what is in the interest of a few private and special financial corporations, corporations increasingly owned and controlled outside of our borders. The latter is an undesirable trend, and this parliament should say so in no uncertain terms.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
We must recognize that in a sense this is a political battle which has never clearly emerged on the floor of this chamber. Nevertheless, one has only to read the type of briefs and documents which reach our offices in periods when we have measures before us like the Canada Pension Plan to realize where much of the strength of the opposition to the idea of the expansion of public insurance is, and where the real opposition is to the channelling of the savings of the Canadian people into socially desirable programs. We have had statements made on motions by the Minister of Finance concerning the problem of protecting the Canadian dollar. Yet, so often in this hour we are asked to approve measures which in the long run will simply compound the problems which any minister of finance in this country will have to face in the future.
We say it is important that this measure not be slipped through in this hour of our proceedings because it would have the effect of negating some of the efforts which may

from time to time be made as a matter of public policy to preserve and strengthen the financial position of the country. We believe that the one cannot be separated from the other. Even though these bills are brought in under the guise of private bills during the period which is referred to as private mem bers' hour, it is my contention that basically we are here to enhance and protect the interests of the ordinary people of Canada. This is the point of view to which we should address ourselves when proposals of this kind come forward. I do not believe this should be regarded as a place to which any private interest can come and expect to get placid and tacit consent by members of parliament to proposals which would enhance their interests at the expense of the ordinary citizens ot Canada.
These private bills, as I have seen them g< through this house from session to session have had a lasting effect upon the real nature of the economy of this country. I do not believe the implications which are inherent in these proposals should be ignored by this house to the extent they often are. This attitude is often indicated by the kind of attendance we have in the house when these matters are considered. I believe we should serve notice-at least I am prepared to do so-that there are some members in this parliament who are not prepared to bow down three times whenever an insurance company decides it wishes to do something in this country. We should make it clear we do not intend to continue to silently accept their sabotage, which is going on behind the scenes, of measures which will really enhance the position of the Canadian people. These are the types of road blocks which stand in the way of real social advances, and which these people manage to establish through their propaganda as well as in other ways.
This is something which disturbs me most deeply. I know we could have had a Canada pension plan which would have been much more adequate than the one now on the statute books had these companies not been so successful in pulling the strings behind the scenes to prevent this kind of a plan. Therefore, while some people allege privately if not on the floor of the house that this is an obstructive exercise, I should like to tell you that so far as I am concerned this is a constructive exercise. It is an effort to persuade this parliament that it is about time we took notice of what is being slipped through during these private members' hours. It is about time we started putting the interests of our
January 23, 1968	COMMONS
people before the private interests of foreign insurance companies.
I believe this bill, with its proposed terms, is a very good example of how we can continue this process that is working against the interests of our constituents. We should be prepared to take a stand and say that it will go on no longer. I am not suggesting that this company or any one of these companies should be expropriated or put out of business.
I am saying, however, that this kind of wasteful approach to the whole field of insurance should be stopped where it is, and that from now on we should agree that public insurance can be provided much more economically and much more effectively than insurance has been provided in the past by virtue of the laws enabling these companies to operate and to expand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like a little more time, but I see that the time is limited. I should like to ask one question of the sponsor of this bill. In a question put to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) he made a statement concerning the disposition of the four companies forming the one company. Although I do not see any reference to that situation in the report of the standing committee, if that is true then I would assume, as sponsor of the bill, he is willing to explain what has happened to the other three companies. The company which we are now being asked to incorporate originally was a holding company. Northwestern Finance was the holding company and this company held the other two companies, the Security National Insurance and British Crown Insurance, in the right of the holding company. If this is so and we are now being asked to increase the capitalization of this company to $5 million, we should know how the others were purchased. If this is really the winding up of a bankruptcy, I think that aspect of it should be explained by the sponsor of the bill. I would hope that the member who raised these matters would tell us how these companies were liquidated and what the disposition of the shares has been.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will now resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.
DEBATES	5877
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting BROADCASTING


IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-193, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The house again in committee on Bill No. C-163, an act to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions. When the committee rose it was considering clause 2 and the amendment thereto.
On clause 2-Broadcasting Policy for Canada.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had made some reference to the fact that in this new broadcasting bill No. C-163 the power still resides with the cabinet to override the decisions of the proposed new council, if as and when it may desire. I made particular reference to the situation existing in the Toronto-Barrie area where a tremendous uproar developed some time ago when it was ascertained by the residents of Toronto that it would be possible for one member of the cabinet only, by putting his signature on a single piece of paper, to move the Barrie station in such a direction and to such an extent that it would interfere with reception in Toronto of several very popular television stations in the Toronto area. I pointed out that there has been no change made in this regard.
Let me direct your attention to the proposal in this bill which states that the governor in council may override any decision of the council as long as it is done within 60 days and as long as the matter has been referred again to the council which has made a second report to the cabinet. However, if that council should have occasion to make a decision the cabinet does not like, arrangements can be
5878	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting made to change the personnel on the council. There are many of us in this house old enough to remember the treatment by Lloyd George of the British House of Lords. When it came time to put a certain measure through the House of Lords he simply created lords right and left in order to obtain a majority in support of his own opinion.
We had a recent appointment to the B.B.G. which was very important, because after he took his seat the motion he was looking after carried by a majority of one. According to the best information available no one has denied the source of that majority, even though the motion was passed the same day as that great Liberal took his seat for the first time.
This situation has to be watched carefully. I believe there should be a change in this proposed bill regarding television and radio because the Canadian public is not satisfied with the situation as it is today. A license can be granted to a t.v. station operator to set up business in a certain town. An amendment to that license can be made by the council if it is desired. Why can a license not be granted for a specific point and for that point only? I have been active for many years in the newspaper business. The newspapers I was connected with were always associated with the Canadian Press. The Canadian Press is a cooperative news gathering organization, but I can assure you that when the Canadian Press granted membership to a new applicant at some place where a new daily paper was to be established that did not give the new member the opportunity to move to any other city in Canada he thought would offer him a better financial return than the place from which he made his application. If a t.v. station operator has applied for a license to go into a certain centre and a licence is granted, there should not be any clause which would make it possible for that operator to move that t.v. station elsewhere, if, as and when he decided to do so. This should not be possible as the result only of obtaining the assent of the cabinet or the proposed new council for radio and television. Such a decision can be made at a meeting in secret. As I indicated to you before six o'clock, meetings do not have to be held in public if the executive committee decides there is no necessity.
Before moving on to the proposed method of financing the C.B.C. on the basis of five year grabs, I should like to refer to a portion of the white paper in relation to multiple

DEBATES	January 23, 1968
ownership of mass media in any one community. I read to you from page ten of the 1966 white paper on broadcasting. On page 12 we have a section headed "Ownership of Canadian facilities". It reads in part:
Within Canada, ownership or control of one medium of communication by another is equally a matter of concern if it tends to develop into a monopoly. There is a growing number of cases where either ownership or control extends to both the local newspapers and the local radio or television facilities. The Board of Broadcast Governors will be required to investigate and report on public complaints or representations about situations of this kind.
Let me point out that there is one city in this Dominion of Canada where the newspaper and the television station are owned by one organization. This is a monopoly situation if there ever was one. I am not going to attack that monopoly situation on the ground that it is inimical to the public interest. However, when people have applied for a C.A.T.V. licence to enter the area served by the monopoly, the newspaper and television station owner-and incidentally the radio station owner as well-they have been told that this would inhibit the establishment of a second television facility in that area. Here is a prima facie case where businessmen have offered competition to a monopoly situation involving the local newspaper, radio and television stations yet the Board of Broadcast Governors say no, you cannot go in there and offer competitive service because this would inhibit the possibility of an alternative t.v. station being erected there.
The white paper was prepared by the cabinet, make no mistake about that. The white paper, says the governor will look into monopoly situations. They should, particularly in relation to a C.A.T.V. application for a license to open a station to break a monopoly situation. Yet any one who makes such an application is informed that he can not do that; he simply can not do that.
e (8:10 p.m.)
They are fine sounding words in the white paper, but I say that actions speak louder than words. The action in refusing a C.A.T.V. applicant permission to enter a monopoly area indicates more forcibly what the cabinet desires to do than any words that may be found in the white paper or in any broadcasting committee report, I can assure you.
Before leaving the subject of C.A.T.V for a moment I should like to refer to the remarks
January 23, 1968

of the hon. Secretary of State on November 1, 1967, to be found on page 3749 of Hansard:
Provision is made for the exemption of certain classes of community antenna from the licensing requirements, for example, the roof-top antenna on an apartment block-
I ask you, if the roof-top antenna on an apartment block, which is nothing more or less than a community antenna system, is not going to require a licence why do they have to have licences for other forms of community antenna systems? As most of you are aware, I represent a Toronto riding. I have been a resident of Toronto for over 50 years. I think it is absolutely amazing that the cabinet will make the statement, through the Secretary of State, that no licence will be required for a roof-top antenna on an apartment block, but other forms of C.A.T.V. operations must have a licence.
I point out, too, that no licence is required for a roof-top antenna to serve a hotel the size of the Royal York hotel in Toronto, which has a community antenna pure and simple. But if there is a real estate subdivision anywhere in Canada that wishes to put in a community antenna in order to bring in the largest possible number of stations to the people living in the real estate subdivision, they will have to apply to this new radio television council for a licence. How ridiculous can you be? You do not need a licence to have a roof-top antenna on a 24-floor apartment block such as stands across the Humber river from my home in the riding of York-Humber. You do not need a licence for a community antenna to service the Royal York hotel, the King Edward hotel or the Westbury hotel. But if the owners of a real estate subdivision desire to put up a community antenna and bury the wires underneath the ground so that every house will not have an antenna above it picking up the individual family reception, they have to apply for a licence, which may be refused by the Board of Broadcast Governors or this proposed new council.
It cannot be right that hotels and apartment blocks do not need a licence for their community antenna systems, whereas real estate subdividers will have to apply for a licence in order to service the homes in the subdivision. If a town wants C.A.T.V., the operator there must apply for a licence. I guess the best way to get a C.A.T.V. licence in Napanee, Prescott and Gananoque would be to erect a hotel consisting of a couple of floors and put in a community antenna system.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I was quite interested when a member of the house last night came to me and talked about C.A.T.V. I said I had never subscribed to it until about two weeks ago. The reason I now subscribe to the C.A.T.V. system is this: I did not really need it, because I was getting a clear enough picture on black and white television, but when I secured a coloured television set-by the way, my wife and I paid for it ourselves; the C.B.C. did not pay for it-I decided to have C.A.T.V. installation in order to get a clearer picture on the coloured television set.
The member of the House of Commons who spoke to me last night said that he does not believe the freedom of the individual is being interfered with by the necessity of securing a licence for C.A.T.V. He expressed resentment to me because I get the C.A.T.V. service from the antenna on top of the Old Mill Towers. He said it is okay for the Old Mill Towers, a 24-floor apartment house, to pick the signals out of the air and transmit them to the apartment dwellers on the 24 floors, but he expressed resentment at the fact that man has a licence to service an area of about a square mile around the Old Mill Towers. He expressed resentment at private homes within a mile of Old Mill Towers receiving C.A.T.V., although it was all right to give it to the apartment dwellers. It was a member of the House of Commons who expressed that resentment last night, much to my surprise.
While we are speaking about the heart of the matter, which is clause 2 of this Bill No. C-163, I want to make some references to the proposed method of financing this octopus which has the country in its grip. In the relevant clauses of the proposed legislation it is stated definitely as follows:
Upon the coming into force of this act and every fifth year thereafter, the corporation shall submit to the minister for submission to the governor in council a five-year capital program proposed by the corporation together with a forecast of the effect of the program on the corporation's operating requirements.
No one can quarrel with the desire to have a five year capital expenditure program submitted by the corporation to the cabinet, because you cannot make large capital expenditures within a 12 month period; capital expenditures, generally speaking, are for long range programs. But I cannot for one single moment support subclause 2 of the financing operation of the corporation which suggests to this parliament that:
Upon the coming into force of this act and every fifth year thereafter, the corporation shall submit
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to the minister an operating budget for the next ensuing five financial years of the corporation for approval by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister and the treasury board, and the minister shall lay before parliament each such operating budget of the corporation as approved by the governor in council within 15 days after the approval thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
This simply means that the C.B.C. is to be given their money in five year grabs. Mr. Chairman and members of the Canadian House of Commons, this to me is an absolute denial of democracy. It is a denial of democracy because the control of public expenditure and taxation is at the heart of the parliamentary system and its origins are deeply rooted in history. The evolution of the British constitution was largely influenced by the fundamental principle that no taxes should be levied and no public revenues disbursed without the prior approval of the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers in parliament assembled. This principle is so fundamental that it is impossible to assign a date to its origin.
I would point out that the practice of holding regular sessions of parliament may be said to date effectively from the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1689. The principle of granting annual appropriations can be traced back in more rudimentary form to the parliaments of the Stuart kings. Prior to 1641 Charles I governed for 11 years without summoning a parliament. It was to resist these illegal exactions that the House of Commons, whenever there was a parliament in existence, would insist on an annual review of certain grants. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is the reason for calling parliament back once a year if we are going to give this crown corporation their money in five year grabs?
The explanation was given to us in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts that the C.B.C. wanted to get their money in five-year grabs so they would not have to come to parliament and ask for the money every 12 months; it was said this would interfere with the even tenor of their acts. A further study of the matter disclosed the point that in 1957, under the St. Laurent administration, there was established by the parliament of Canada the Canada Council. Before the creation of the Canada Council, you may remember, certain great windfalls came to the dominion in the form of succession duties on two vast Canadian estates which were assigned to the Canada Council

over a ten year period. I have read the discussion and observed the fact that parliament was being circumvented by this ten-year plan for the Canada Council. I refer to the discussion that took place in 1957.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cariboo is in the house tonight because I should like to pay tribute to him for the stand he took in February of 1957, almost 11 years ago, against money being voted by parliament on a ten year basis. He mentioned the fact that money should not be voted for a longer term than one year and that each year parliament should impose the necessary taxes and allocate funds to the departments requiring finance. I should like to refer in more detail to the statements of the hon. member for Cariboo. They make very interesting reading at this time when there is an effort afoot to allocate money to the C.B.C. in five year grants. I tell you, gentlemen, if the C.B.C. can foretell what will happen in five years' time, they should be running the country. Let me point out that this past Sunday the Prime Minister of Canada himself, speaking in Winnipeg, pointed out that there are unhappy signs of difficulties ahead. He said that prices and the danger of inflation are a major problem and that the government has begun to tackle it. The Globe and Mail of January 22 contained the following report:
Canada's dollar remains strong, although there are unhappy signs of a weakening in international economic co-operation, Prime Minister Lester Pearson told western Liberals here yesterday.
Then we have the comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his year end review of Canada's economy in 1967 and outlook for 1968. The minister, who is a master at his job, said the following:
In Canada, economic activity has continued to expand, but at a reduced pace.... But more than half of this increase reflects higher prices.
Then, he pointed out that:
Above average wheat crops, particularly in the main importing countries, have brought about a pronounced softening in the world wheat market in the latter part of 1967.
The C.B.C. of course will be able to foretell whether or not there will be above average wheat crops in other parts of the world thus affecting Canadian wheat sales from year to year, and therefore we should give them their money in five year grants.
January 23, 1968

Then, the Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to say:
There are, however, other, less salutary, developments in the economy which, unless checked, could reverse this favourable trend in our payments position and undermine the very basis of our current prosperity.
The minister has his feet on the ground. He knows no man can look into the future five years ahead. It is a fortunate man who can look 12 months ahead. He went on to say:
Nor can the momentum toward freer world trade be allowed to subside.
He issued his statement in December and already in January we are concerned about the protective policies which are developing in various nations of the world. We cannot foretell which country will raise barriers against us at any one time, but the C.B.C. management maintain they can foretell five years ahead what will happen, despite rising costs, despite inflation, and despite above average wheat crops in other parts of the world. The C.B.C. knows what will happen. They can tell us five years in advance what they will want, and we are supposed to pay them the money without any discussion during the five year period.
The following is a quotation by the hon. member for Cariboo of what Hon. Louis St. Laurent said on the establishment of the Canada Council:
It was for the purpose of creating this body in such a way that it would not be subject to frequent pressures in the allocation of the funds which would be placed at its disposal.
This simply means that Mr. St. Laurent did not want the Canada Council coming to parliament once every 12 months to ask for additional funds. He referred to it as being "subject to frequent pressures in the allocation of funds". This is a nice way of speaking of annual grants by the parliament of Canada to which men and women are elected to look after the best interests of the taxpayers. As the hon. member for Cariboo said in February of 1957:
-I think it is a reflection on any government, ... to make the suggestion he did, namely that someone who is going to follow is not going to be as true to his country as the Prime Minister himself is.
If the C.B.C. cannot trust the parliaments which will be elected in the future to do the proper thing year by year, then we need somebody in the C.B.C. with a little trust and faith in the elected members of this house.
To show hon. members how impossible it is even for the C.B.C. to forecast the future I
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting will quote from page 4905 of Hansard of November 30, 1967, when the Minister of Finance introduced his mini budget. He spoke at that time about the changes that had taken place since June when he brought in the first budget. He referred to the financial changes which had taken place in the previous five months. Yet the C.B.C. can foretell five years ahead what they will require. They want us to hand them over the money and to ask them for an explanation only once every five years. On November 30, the Minister of Finance said the following:
The fiscal restraints that are essential now may limit somewhat the increase in our production next year but such a limitation now is far better than a serious recession later... This is a case where the proverbial ounce of prevention now is far preferable to a pound of cure later.
He then spoke of:
-the unacceptably high rate at which prices and costs are increasing, including wage settlements.
He referred to cost increases and said:
-in the expectation that their money over the years will maintain its real value.
Then he gave the back of his hand to the Carter report by stating:
The commission was designing a system to yield a revenue comparable to that of 1964. Clearly we will need a tax system in 1969 and subsequently which will produce more revenues than that of 1964-
If the Carter commission could not foretell the financial future of the country, I can assure the house that I have no confidence in the ability of the C.B.C. management to forecast its financial requirements five years ahead. We must have an annual accounting as called for by the present Broadcasting Act. Section 35(1) of the 1958 Broadcasting Act reads:
The minister shall annually lay before parliament a capita! budget and an operating budget for the next ensuing financial year of the corporation, approved by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Finance.
Subsection (2) reads:
Within one year after the coming into force of this act and every fifth year thereafter the corporation shall submit to the minister and the Minister of Finance for submission to the Governor in Council a five year capital program.
The present Broadcasting Act calls for annual operating budgets but a five year capital budget. The proposed bill now before us calls for a five year capital budget, which is quite satisfactory to me and a five year operating budget. The new bill should call for an
January 23, 1968


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


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I was rather hesitant at rising at this stage of the proceedings because I question the value of suggestions that are put forward at this stage. However, some of the suggestions I wish to make in my presentation may be of such a nature that something can be done to implement them. I mention this because I wonder whether there can be many major changes in the drafting of this bill before it finally passes parliament, if it does.
I venture to suggest to the minister at this point that in the few months remaining until


the new leader of the government is appointed she temper her remarks so that the new management of the C.B.C. might be given the opportunity to prove its value, if such is the case.
One suggestion I should like to leave at this point of the proceedings and which applies to broadcasting generally concerns the programming of the C.B.C. about which there has been wide criticism from the public at large. People feel that in many cases the C.B.C. programming is demoralizing, deceitful and degrading. This is not criticism that is levelled by church groups or organizations which seek to provide us with some sort of standard of values in this country; this is criticism that has come from parents as well as from young people.
We have from time to time passed legislation relating to pornography, and this subject is also occasionally touched on by the C.B.C. in its television broadcasting. If magazines or books are published in contravention of such legislation, then they should be withdrawn or action taken.
Some producers produce programs with only one idea in mind, namely their self-promotion. In such cases, I think it would be in the public interest to stipulate in their contracts that if after consultation with the management and board of directors of the C.B.C. they are of the opinion that certain programs of this type were detrimental to the moral health of the country, the contracts of these producers could be terminated. A provision could be written into the contract to safeguard the producer's interest, but I think that some action along this line is necessary. I do not think that the public in general should be subjected to this type of program whether they want it or not. Although this criticism is mainly directed at the C.B.C., it could also apply to private broadcasters. That is all I have to say on that point. I do not want to spend more time than is necessary briefly to state the case.
I am also opposed to another provision in the bill, which incidentally has been embodied in other legislation. I am referring to the appointment of the president, which is now a thing of the past. I do not think that such appointments should be made for a period longer than four years. If at the end of the four year period the incumbent has been satisfactory he could be reappointed. In the case of a man who has proved his value I do not think there would be any danger of the government suddenly dismissing him and trying to find somebody to take his place.
January 23, 1S68

In my opinion this would provide some recourse to the government if the management of the C.B.C. were unable to apply themselves to the promotion of the type of programming that was considered desirable.
I would join other speakers in voicing my objection to the five year period for capital programming. I cannot imagine anything more undesirable than perpetuating the type of financing of the C.B.C. that has been the case heretofore and which has been progressively increasing in amount year by year.
In this connection, one has only to look back to previous broadcasting reports and to the report of the Gordon commission to find how sadly underestimated were the financial requirements of broadcasting, and this following upon what I believe was a very care-full study of broadcasting needs. I do not think that the government should be obligated to carry on mistakes in this area which may have been made by its predecessor or by a former leader of the party.
The government is presently attempting to impose an austerity program on the country. This it cannot do if it continues to hand over sizeable amounts to the C.B.C. which are in the interest neither of the public nor the government. I suggest that the financial provisions in the bill should be re-examined. Parliament has never turned down any budgetary plans that were reasonable. However, I do not believe that the public will tolerate the present situation, and I do not think we would be doing our duty if we were not to record our opposition to this particular type of financing.
With regard to capital expenditure, it is regrettable that many fringe areas in the country at the present time are not receiving service and are sadly neglected. I remember asking a question on this on March 9, 1966, and I was told that at that time the total number of people without television in Newfoundland was 83,600; in Prince Edward Island 10,300; in Nova Scotia 8,600; in New Brunswick 11,100; in Quebec 82,300; in Ontario 85,000; in Manitoba 71,300; in my own province of Saskatchewan 169,300; in Alberta
88,000,	and in British Columbia 111,800. There are many areas of the country which are well served with facilities. I know the demand is great, but we should not ignore these people entirely.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
One need only look at the expenditures which have been made on fringe areas to
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting realize what has happened. The information I am about to give to the committee was supplied to me by the C.B.C. At the end of March, $1,700,000 had been spent specifically for the extension of coverage into those areas which might be considered fringe areas. In 1964, $733,000 was spent; in 1965, $1,400,000 was spent; in 1966, $2,700,000, was spent and in 1967, $2,200,000 was spent. As against that, in 1967 alone $10 million was spent for colour television facilities. I understand that that was a special expenditure. Nevertheless, the question is often asked why, after a five year period, only approximately $8 million has been spent in developing coverage for fringe areas, as against the $10 million which was spent for colour television facilities in one year. Such expenditure does not constitute a proper management of funds and shows a complete disregard for those in the fringe areas.
In future, I submit, between 15 to 20 per cent of capital expenditures should be earmarked specifically for our fringe areas. In this way our entire population will come to understand what national unity is. The people in some areas of Canada have grown up with television, but in other areas they have not. Sometimes the television that has been provided has been difficult to view. That this situation is allowed to exist some of our people think is inequitable, it should be corrected.
The question of satellite broadcasting has not even been touched in this bill. I cannot understand why such a supposedly far reaching bill should ignore the question of satellite broadcasting. I submit that under the broadcasting bill we should set up an agency which should look into the entire question of satellite broadcasting and co-ordinate all the preliminary work that may be necessary to bring about such a far reaching innovation as broadcasting via satellite.
We know what is going on between Quebec and France. Satellite television is not something that is in somebody's imagination, something that we shall not see for the next 20 years. Satellite television is a present day reality and this bill ought to make provision for this country to control the space above it from which a satellite might beam broadcasts. We might launch a satellite in orbit. In any event, I think we should try to protect ourselves, because other countries are looking at space.
Do we want satellite transmissions to be controlled by private or public agencies? That
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting is a question we must ask ourselves and that is the question which this bill should clarify. But this bill does nothing like that. At present the initiative in this field comes from private industry. The question that Canadians generally may ask themselves is: is it necessary to have a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at all?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Stanley James Korchinski: If the answer is yes, as an hon. member suggests, I submit that it is necessary for us to examine the entire question of transmission by satellite. If it is necessary to have a C.B.C. then, I say, the C.B.C. should be charged with the responsibility,^ at this stage of our proceedings, of examining that question. This bill ought to set up the machinery which would guarantee that the C.B.C. will be able to use our space in the near future.
We should reserve Canada's space for Canada. We should share it, rent it or sell it if we do not want it, but we should reserve our right to our space and that space ought to be disposed of in a way which will be good for Canada. Another country should not be allowed to reserve our space; we should not put ourselves in the position of having to go to someone else, hat in hand, asking for permission to use our space.
There are many difficulties to setting up orbiting satellites. We may have the knowhow, but we do not have the resources to do it. I'think that all these questions should be worked out by an agency that ought to be established by the present bill. I do not believe that this bill ought to be amended in one or two years. If it is left in its present form I see no alternative to our coming back to amend it. Should that happen, we shall have been very shortsighted.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things only about the broadcasting bill. First, I wish to add my voice to those who have previously spoken in criticism of some C.B.C. productions. I think we should look to some other body than the C.B.C. for productions that are suitable to be televised. Some independent body ought to make these productions and sell them. I am referring to feature films and not to those productions that are made to be released almost immediately, news interviews and so on. Provision ought to be made for some industry which would make films for sale to television operators.


Then, the C.B.C., C.T.V. and other broadcasting networks could buy or rent those productions; in that way, by having available productions which are produced at competitive prices, we should escape the criticisms which are directed at the C.B.C. in connection with its productions. Those criticisms are very serious indeed.
One of my main reasons for rising is that I v/ant to make another plea for the extension of broadcasting facilities in the northern areas of Canada. It is incredible that out of a budget of from $140 million to $170 million we should quibble about the $200,000 to $250,000 which would provide the complete establishment of television facilities throughout the entire northern parts of our provinces.
Hon. members of the house may be surprised at this, but the cost of translators for television broadcasts is very, very minor indeed. You can set up a minor broadcasting or relay station, with a translator, for as little as $3,500. That station can pick up signals from the air. Bear in mind that modern facilities for scrubbing certain signals exist. It has been said to me by engineers that a signal can be transmitted from Vancouver, through a translator, to the Prince George district of British Columbia and that the signal there will be stronger and clearer than the signal which is received by sets in the city of Vancouver from the local broadcasting station.
c (8:50 p.m.)
The reason is that there is a lot of local interference in the city; those who live right in the city do not get as good a signal as that transmitted 500 miles through the relay to the outskirts of Vancouver where there is little interference. This proves that the ability to use translators to bring a signal into the far reaches of the north is ours for the taking, and I emphasize once again that an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars out of a budget running as high as $170 million seems like peanuts when one considers the result that could be achieved.
The prime purpose of the C.B.C. was to bring broadcasting, whether radio or television, to regions where it would be uneconomic for private enterprise to provide it. This is spelled out in the new bill. I must say I was pleased to receive a letter from the minister in which I was informed it was government policy to give priority to bringing signals to these outlying areas. I must say I am interested in having these signals made available free to all who live in such areas.
January 23, 1368

Why should people in Valemount in my constituency have to make payments every month in order to get television of sorts, in addition to providing funds for the transmitter? It does not make sense. Everyone else gets free television. Think of the millions being spent by the C.B.C. to wean Canadian business away from United States stations. Well, there are people in the north who still do not have transmissions of any kind available to them, though the provision of a signal would involve a paltry sum of between $3,500 and $7,000.
The C.B.C. comes cap in hand asking for a five-year budget as far as operating expenditures are concerned. I cannot find words strong enough to denounce a policy which allows the C.B.C. a five year budget. What in the world is this parliament for if it is not to scrutinize expenditures of this type and see whether or not we are getting value for the money spent? I recall the years gone by when no broadcasting committee was set up and when we were unable to examine the affairs of the C.B.C. in any effective way. I should like to see the broadcasting committee meet every year, with a report from the management before it for discussion as is the case with any other Crown corporation, and the C.B.C. getting money on the basis of its performance.
Nothing could be more appalling than that the government of Canada should even consider allowing a five year budget. There is not a businessman in Canada of any experience who would subscribe to such a thing. Certainly we need some action on the part of hon. members on all sides of this house to make certain that this five year plan is put on the shelf. In this connection, we are all aware that the government is very much concerned today about the rate of government spending. If this state of affairs continues we may have to cut back the $170 million allotted to the C.B.C. as part of a deliberate program. If there is a possibility of getting ourselves into a lot of trouble in the financial world today, why should we put a glorified circle around the C.B.C.?
I, myself, am interested, of course, in plans for an airport terminal at St. George. I agree that if the government is pressed and has to reduce its spending, we shall have to be patient and wait. But why in the world should we wait for the building of an airport terminal there merely to fatten the C.B.C. with multi-millions of dollars in excess of the amount required to bring needed facilities to Prince George and the surrounding area?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In closing, I should like to say that as one who has been in business, who has had to meet a payroll and bear responsibility for production, this five year budget provision makes no sense whatever.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: When my time expired a short while ago I was referring to the clause in this proposed act which would give the C.B.C. its operating expenditures by means of a five year grant rather than through an annual grant under the present system. It is true we have never received an explanation from the C.B.C. as to how they spend their money. On the other hand, parliament does get an opportunity once a year to find out how much the C.B.C. proposes to spend in the following year, which gives a rough indication of the base they will use to exceed as the 12 months roll by. As I say, we have never succeeded in getting details of the corporation's expenses. Nevertheless, it is my belief that to give the corporation funds on which to operate for five years at a time is a denial of democracy and a mockery of parliament.
Why should we give the C.B.C. its operating budget on a five-year basis and not do the same for the department of defence? We could give the department of defence the money for a unified force in five year grants. We could do the same for the Department of Agriculture. We could give the Department of Trade and Commerce the funds it requires for five years. Then, parliament would not have to meet more than once every five years. I have already pointed out, however, that the annual meeting of parliament is something which dates back into history as far as the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1689, and indications are even further back than that. But in 1968 we find a cabinet in Canada which says it is not necessary to vote funds once a year on an annual basis; the C.B.C. would like to be treated in the same way as the Canada Council and allowed to ask for its appropriation only once every five years.
Do you realize, under the five year plan which is mentioned in this bill, that if the St, Laurent government in say, April, 1957, had given the C.B.C. its funds for five years' operating expenses the Diefenbaker administration, in its term of office from June, 1957, to March, 1958, could have done nothing with the C.B.C., even though it had been elected by the voters of Canada in June, 1957? There is a five year idea behind this suggestion in the bill. I have heard some hon. members
5886	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting state that they cannot go for the five year plan but that they would go for a three year plan. They think a three year plan would be better than a five year plan. But the three year plan would also have covered the entire first administration of the Diefenbaker government, and it would have been unable to do anything with the C.B.C. during its ten months' tenure of office, because the St. Laurent government would have provided five year or three year grants in April 1957.
The first Pearson administration lasted from April, 1963, to November, 1965, a little better than two and a half years. If the three year plan, as suggested, had been in effect it might have been possible for the Diefenbaker administration, in February or March of 1963, to have voted three year's operating appropriations to the C.B.C. and the Pearson administration, in its first term, from April, 1963, to November, 1965, would not have been able to do anything with the expenses of the C.B.C. because the defeated Diefenbaker administration had voted them their three year's funds in, say, March, 1963, prior to the general election when the Diefenbaker administration was turned out of office. How ridiculous can you get?
The three year plan is not satisfactory, but let me give you the most glaring example that would have occurred under this proposed five year operating budget scheme. Under the five year budget operating scheme if the St. Laurent administration in, say, May of 1957 had voted five years' funds to the C.B.C. then the C.B.C. would have been carried from May of 1957 to May of 1962, and we had the first Diefenbaker administration taking office in June, 1957. It would not have been able to do anything with the C.B.C. expenses because the C.B.C. would have been granted five years' appropriation by the St. Laurent administration prior to its defeat in June, 1957.
But worse than that, under the five year proposal contained in this bill, when the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker went to the country in March, 1958, he came back with the largest number of supporters that any party or any prime minister has ever received in the history of Canada-208 Conservative members. In a house of 265 members he had 208 seats. Now, he was in power from March, 1958 until June, 1962, with his second administration, a four year term. Do you realize that if the St. Laurent government under the proposed scheme had given the C.B.C. its five year appropriation, then from June of 1957, when

DEBATES	January 23, 1968
Mr. Diefenbaker formed his first administration, right up to May of 1962, about which time his second administration was expiring, he would never have been able to do a thing with the C.B.C. appropriations despite the fact that in March, 1958, he came into this house with the largest number of supporters in the history of Canada, 208? With a five year appropriation for the C.B.C. passed by the St. Laurent government in May, 1957, the prime minister of Canada and his cabinet would not have been able to do anything with the expenses of the C.B.C. during his first administration from June, 1957, to March, 1958, and for the next four years in his second administration when he had 208 supporters.
What would be the use of holding elections to the House of Commons if the men elected were going to be denied the opportunity of administering the affairs of state? We are told when the budget is brought to us each year that we are in control of only a certain proportion of the total funds. We have a statement made to us that something like 35 per cent of the budget is covered by long-term debt on which we have to pay the interest and some sinking fund payments. Then, we have statutory payments set by law, such as the salaries of judges. All this comes pretty close to 50 per cent of the annual budget which the houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, cannot touch because those expenditures have been fixed for some time into the future by parliaments of the past. These are expenditures which parliaments have seen fit to take upon their shoulders, knowing them to be right, legal and above board.
If we agree to give the individual arms of government five year budget appropriations, the day will come when the annual budget will not control a single, solitary cent. The C.B.C. will say, "We have got our money for five years." The Department of Trade and Commerce will be wanting similar treatment. The C.N.R. will want similar treatment, and in no time at all the annual budget of parliament will mean nothing because we have committed ourselves to five year grants for spending the funds. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to occur, and this clause in the bill should be changed.
During the consideration of this clause of the bill in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, I moved that we should retain the existing section 35 of the Broadcast Act of 1958 which calls for
January 23, 1988

annual appropriations and, as I have said earlier today and I repeat again, the absence of responsibility is the mother of extravagance.
If the C.B.C. is not going to be required to come to us at least once a year and explain their actions, and explain what they hope to do in the coming 12 months, then parliament should not be meeting at all except on a once in five years basis. It makes an entire mockery of the election of members to parliament if we are not going to have the expenses of the various departments of government submitted to us annually, as has been the practice in Britain since 1689 when the Bill of Rights was passed, a practice which has been adopted in Canada.
When I expressed my opposition to this proposed five year budgetary plan in the House of Commons committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, a member of the committee gave me the very fast answer that what one parliament has done another parliament can undo, the idea being that if one parliament made a mistake the nex parliament could change it. Now, that is a very nice, glib phrase, that what one parliament has done another parliament can undo.
I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that in 1890 the British parliament ceded Heligoland to Germany by an act of parliament in exchange for the island of Zanzibar. I ask, do you think that any British parliament is going to reverse that act of 1890 and regain Heligoland for the British people once more and, in fact, give Zanzibar back to Germany? Anybody can see that glibness is the major characteristic of the phrase "What one parliament has done another parliament can undo." The ceding of Heligoland in 1890 is a good case in point.
Another one is the acknowledgement of the independence of the United States of America. The United States of America rebelled against British control in 1776. The American revolution was settled by the Treaty of Versailles of 1783. Of course the Treaty of Versailles of 1783 had to be ratified by the British parliament. Of course it was ratified by the British parliament, and i6 on the statute books of the British House of Commons to this day. Are you going to tell me what one parliament has done another parliament can undo, because I ask you how are we going to reverse the action of the British parliament that acknowledged the independence of the United States of America when it approved
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, after the American revolution?
We cannot undo in one parliament many things that might have been done by a prior parliament. It would be best if the members of this parliament would bear in mind that parliament can undo what another parliament has done, with limitations, but it would be much, much better if members bore in mind the statement that one parliament cannot bind another parliament. If one parliament could bind the next, why have parliament met annually? Why have parliament elected every four or five years, because if one parliament can bind the next we might as well pass all the necessary laws for the rest of time this winter and never have to come back again to consider changes in the method of living in this country. We can pass laws which we can say will be in effect for the next 75 years. I say to you that no parliament can bind a succeeding parliament. We should not be so puerile as to suggest that any branch of government should be given five years' operating expenses in five year grabs. This is simply an effort on the part of the creature of the federal parliament to get out from under the control of those people who are responsible for taxing the public of Canada in order to maintain the necessary services, of which we consider the C.B.C. to be one.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I emphasize as broadly as I can that it is ridiculous to ask parliament to bind the parliaments over the next four years to a C.B.C. operating budget. I have already explained how, if this had been in effect in May 1957, the hands of the newly elected Diefenbaker government in June 1957 would have been tied and how the hands of the second Diefenbaker administration in March 31, 1958 would have been tied. What would be the use of holding elections at all? Why ask the people to vote if when the elected representatives get to Ottawa they cannot do anything about the expenses of the government agencies because it has already been agreed that the C.B.C. shall have its money in five year grabs.
I cannot speak against this five year financing of the C.B.C. in any stronger terms without losing my temper. I cannot see how a Liberal cabinet could sensibly and knowingly propose such a denial of democracy as this proposal for a five year operating budget. A five year capital expense budget would be all well and good; that is normal practice. But to
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting propose a five year operating budget and asking the parliament of Canada to approve it, thus binding succeeding four year parliaments, is something which is more than human nature can stand. I cannot believe the cabinet has given this matter the consideration it deserves. I sincerely ask that this matter be reconsidered by the cabinet and that a much more sensible proposal be brought in regarding the manner of financing the C.B.C.
When this bill was being considered by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts the member for Saskatoon but his finger on a troublesome point which I think should be drawn to the attention of the House of Commons at this time so that this matter may be given consideration before the clause by clause study of the bill commences. The member for Saskatoon, Dr. Brand, was discussing clause 19, and his remarks are reported at page 138 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for November 23. He expressed a lot of concern about the amount of power that can be delegated by the executive committee of the proposed council to one permanent member and one non-permanent member to hold a public hearing and still have all the rights and privileges as pointed out in subclause (7), that are vested in a superior court of record.
The member for Saskatoon went on to say:
It concerns me a little that you are going to have a public hearing held by just two individuals who have these powers which are quasi judicial powers; perhaps even judicial without the quasi, I do not know.
The member for Saskatoon pointed out that he had the impression that the powers were altogether too great to be given to some organization outside of a court of law. He quoted a section and pointed out that the members so designated have, and may exercise for the purpose of such hearing, the powers of the commission set out in subsection (7) which includes all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record. He went on to say that this includes such things as the enforcement of its orders, the entry of and inspection of property. The hon. member said, "This is the sort of thing which concerns me".
He went on:
Then, if you turn to clause 26 which refers to appeals from such orders, there is reference only to the Commission itself. There seems to be a distinct difference between the Commission and a two-member committee set up by the Commission.


The appeal lies only from a decision of the Commission and not necessarily from a decision of any subcommittee of the Commission that may be set up.
As the hon. member went on to point out, these people have the authority, if this bill is passed in its present form, of a superior court of record. It would appear that they can enter upon property upon their own verdict, having been given powers the same as a superior court of record. This is giving the C.B.C. carte blanche with a vengeance. This is a clause in the bill which should be reconsidered and reworded because there is no reason for confering such powers upon them when the courts of law are established and have been established in this country for many many years.
I have no desire to enter into a discussion of the question of the programming of the C.B.C., as this discussion has been handled by abler persons than myself. I certainly would like to refer, however, to the millions of dollars which are being spent unnecessarily by the C.B.C. in maintaining a national newsgathering organization of its own. I know of no reason that the taxpayers of Canada should be expected to pay for the operation of a national newsgathering organization, not only throughout Canada but also in various parts of the world. This matter was brought before the broadcasting committee where, of course, there was a majority of Liberal members, and we are considering a bill here which has been introduced by a Liberal cabinet.
At that time I pointed out that for something over 65 years we have had in Canada a marvellous newsgathering organization, namely, the Canadian Press. This is a cooperative newsgathering organization consisting primarily of the daily newspapers of Canada from coast to coast. It covers the news as it develops in all quarters of the Dominion of Canada and, through its arrangement with such organizations as the Associated Press in the United States and Reuters in Europe, has a world-wide newsgathering facility. I mentioned that this is a newsgathering service which is adequate for the daily newspapers of Canada. The daily newspapers of Canada have been accepted by the people of this country for almost 100 years as a satisfactory news service, but the C.B.C. cannot be satisfied with such a news service; it must build a news service of its own. Why cannot the C.B.C., in its broadcasting of news, rely on the same service as the daily and weekly newspapers, namely the Canadian Press.
January 23, 1968

The C.B.C. spends millions of dollars building up a newsgathering organization. They have bragged that they would build up a competitive service against the Canadian Press. As I said in the committee and repeat now, the Canadian Press does not buy any news from the C.B.C., but the C.B.C. subscribes to the Canadian Press. That should indicate which is the superior of the two. I cannot express adequately my disgust at the fact that the Canadian taxpayers are being asked to pay, and that taxes are being levied against them to pay, for a competing news service. When I brought the matter before the broadcasting committee I received the smart answer that no doubt when Reuters began to compete with Wolffe and Havas, other newsgathering organizations in Europe, they were protested by the old established organizations. I have no doubt that if someone started up a newsgathering service in Europe in the past both Reuters and Wolffe would have objected. [DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I have not the slightest doubt but that Wolffe, Havas and Reuters objected one about the other as these newsgathering services came on the scene, but the difference is that they were privately operated organizations battling on even terms. I know of no reason Canadian Press should be asked to compete with a government subsidized and operated newsgathering organization.
I can give many instances of extravagant expenditures by the C.B.C., the worst of course being the recent coverage of the PanAmerican games in Winnipeg. The best information that newspaper people in Canada could obtain is that the C.B.C spent millions of dollars covering this event as compared with the $18,000 spent by the Canadian Press. The expenditure of the C.B.C. newsgathering service in opposition to C.T.V. in Winnipeg would bring tears to the eyes of any taxpayer aware of the tremendous and excessive expenditure by the C.B.C.
I have told you about this in the past but I think it is a wonderful example of the extravagance of the C.B.C. When his Holiness the Pope visited Israel some years ago, the Canadian Press did not send anyone from Canada to cover this historical event. It very satisfactorily relied on the detailed coverage made available by the Associated Press and by Reuters from Europe. Very fine coverage was given in the Canadian press of this visit by His Holiness to Israel. What did the C.B.C. do? They flew two crews to Israel; one French camera crew and one English camera
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting crew as well as English and French commentators. I have asked this question on many occasions but have yet to receive an answer. What difference could there be in the scenery of Israel at the time the Pope visited the holy land as disclosed by a French camera or an English camera, both owned by the C.B.C.? One will have an idea, when he learns that the Canadian Press did not send anyone to Israel at that time but that the C.B.C. sent two camera crews and two crews of commentators, just what little regard the C.B.C. pays to expenses.
Another classic example relates to the uproar that developed in Panama when some Panamanians took some pot shots at some Americans in the canal zone. The Canadian Press thought an adequate coverage of the Panamanian zone uprising would be provided by world wide news organizations and Canadian Press relied on them. The C.B.C. flew people down to New Orleans and to Panama. I ask you what in the name of heaven could the Canadian C.B.C. crew see in the Panama Canal zone that was not adequately reported by the Associated Press people.
I cannot for one moment understand why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is supposed to be covering all facets of the world scene. As mentioned by the hon. member for Villeneuve during his remarks, I believe, the Canadian Broadcasting Policy should be confined to Canada. If we have some newsgathering we want from all four comers of the world, let us subscribe to the newsgathering services which have covered those corners of the world for members of the fourth estate for a long time, and covered them satisfactorily. We are not adding anything to the enlightenment of the world by sending C.B.C. correspondents to Saigon and South and North Viet Nam, particularly when they come back here and attack the methods of the United States government in conducting that war.
The C.B.C. has been engendering international incidents by flying junior help to Viet Nam who come back and make off-the-cuff statements, embarrassing to the Canadian government and provocative to the United States government, with whom we should at all times be on the friendliest of terms. I know no proper reason for the Canadian broadcasting corporation to send representatives or correspondents to Viet Nam to cover a scene
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that is adequately covered by other newsgathering organizations. The Canadian Press service covers this scene adequately by gathering news from the organizations with which it co-operates.
I hope I made myself clear when I said I could not support a five year operating budget for the C.B.C. I could not care less who introduced the bill in parliament. It will not have my support because of this clause alone.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I have been moved to take part in this debate by the remarks of the hon. member for York-Hum-ber. I have never known so many people to be moved by that hon. member's speeches. Let me set straight a fairy story that has been told here during the past two or three hours. It has to do with the suggestion that this house has control over the spending estimates of any department. Where is the hon. member of this house who can remember a time when the estimates of a department have been reduced in this house? I suggest this has never happened in modern history. Surely, this is a fairy story or a myth.
This myth, as described by the hon. member for York Humber, is to the effect that the elective representatives have some control over the government and the C.B.C. As I have mentioned, and as the minister could explain if she were so inclined, the fact of the matter is that the department heads and the president of the C.B.C. decide how much money they need, be it $114 million or more. The estimates then go to the cabinet and to the treasury board. Usually, the treasury board cuts the estimates by perhaps 25 per cent. These department heads and the C.B.C. officials are smart enough to add 30 per cent to their budget needs and they end up better than even.
These estimates then come to the house and are the subject of votes of non-confidence. The rules are such that when the estimates are before the house hon. members can talk about the lumber industry in British Columbia, the fishing and coal industries in the maritimes or anything else they wish. The fact of the matter is that no one talks about the estimates. Finally a member, like that gentleman who is now a feature writer, Mr. Douglas Fisher, moves that the estimates be reduced from $114 million, or whatever they might be, to $1. That usually is the final vote. At no time does it seem that anyone ever questions why the C.B.C. or any other department needs the money it has requested. This whole thing is nothing more than a myth or an exercise.

About the fall of 1964 the committee on parliamentary procedure made a report. At about that time the Prime Minister said in this house he thought it would be a very good idea if departmental estimates were taken out of the house and put into committee. He said that this would give the backbencher and parliamentary committees a certain sense of representative power. He said they could examine these departmental estimates, make recommendations and determine the amounts of money to be made available.
This all sounded very reasonable, because members of parliament could then question the officials of the department as to their money needs. They could also reduce the amounts available to the civil service to carry out these many ventures. If members of parliament had these powers, I am sure a great deal of attention would be paid to what the members had to say. When the amended rules were presented it was obvious that the estimates of the departments may be referred to committees for examination only. The committees can not determine the amount of estimates nor even make recommendations that are likely to be accepted. That is the fact in our parliamentary system.
These criticisms have been placed on the record for the past 25, 30 or 40 years, and I refer to the fact that this house has absolutely no control over departmental spending. We are now asked to approve five year budgeting.
* (9:30 p.m.)
I can see nothing at all wrong with that. In fact, most businesses and enterprises today find it necessary, in order to conduct a good endeavour, to plan five years ahead. I can see nothing wrong with the Department of Finance doing the same thing. In fact, we should be giving very serious attention to making plans over a longer period, say between three and five years, so that business in this nation will know what it is facing, agriculture will know what it is facing and the C.B.C. will know what it is facing. Let us forget this myth, this fairy story about parliamentary control over spending.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to put a short question to the Secretary of State
January 23, 1968

(Miss LaMarsh) before the vote on my amendment to clause 2 paragraph (b). Could the minister say what she means by:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
Secondly, what does this mean from a financial or investment point of view?
Those are the only two questions I should like to put to the Secretary of State and then
1	will be ready for the vote on my amendment. Can the Secretary of State answer my questions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear.


Gilles Grégoire: Then can I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State? In her view, are the Quebec television stations included in this category of television stations effectively controlled by Canadians?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 47.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Perhaps I should point out to the committee now that last evening there was a measure of agreement that we should proceed with clause 2 in order of the subclauses. Is it the wish of the committee that we now proceed in that way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall subclause (a) of clause
2	carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something concerning subclause (a) of clause 2, which reads as follows:
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, herein referred to as the Canadian broadcasting system, comprising public and private elements;
This subclause recognizes that any company or person operating or owning a television or radio station in fact uses public waves or, as they are called here, frequencies.
No Canadian citizen can operate a radio or t.v. station without the authorization of the Canadian Transport Commission. Why? Precisely because he uses airwaves which are 27053-372
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting public property. That is something everyone admits.
Secondly, it is obvious that radio wave lengths are limited and that t.v. channels are even more so. This field of radio and television broadcasting is therefore very limited.
First of all, it belongs to the public. That we have seen. Secondly, it is something that has limits.
I wonder why, in revising its Broadcasting Act, the government did not think of giving the council which will deal with broadcasting in the future the right to have a say concerning the prices charged by these radio and television stations. If, for instance, the Bell Telephone Company wants to increase their rates, they have to prove to the Transport and Communications Board that an increase in prices is necessary. Without such a proof, they will have to maintain the current rates.
The same applies to trucking or railway or air transport companies operating in exclusive fields and wishing to increase their rates.
The trucking company must apply to the Transport Board, railroad or airline companies have to do the same because they are involved in exclusive fields.
Telephone, for instance, is an exclusive field. In front of my house or in front of anybody's house, there is only one telephone line. There are not two. The subscriber has no choice. He is forced to use such and such a line. Other companies are prohibited from coming into the territory of another company. Services are exclusive. In order to protect the subscriber and prevent his being exploited by just one company, such companies, when they want to increase their rates and prices, are required to come before the Transport and Communications Board and prove the necessity of the increase applied for.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. There has been agreement in the committee that we should now discuss clause 2 in the order of the subclauses. I think that implicit in that agreement is the fact that we must confine our comments to, in this particular case, subclause (a) of clause 2. I am going to ask the hon. member for Lapointe to confine his remarks carefully to the discussion of subclause (a) of clause 2.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did not want to deal with this problem under general
5892	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting provisions, because I felt that it referred precisely to clause 2 (a), and here is why. In clause 2 (a), it is provided that:
Broadcasting undertakings in Canada make use of radio frequencies that are public property-
Precisely because these frequencies are public property, I suggest that this should normally come under a board, just as transport companies. Such a body would ensure that undertakings operating frequencies that are public property may not increase their rates without seeking approval of the Canadian radio council.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why I thought that this point was relevant to clause 2 (a). I could have brought it up during the general debate, but I wanted to talk about it on subclause (a), thinking that it was more specifically relevant to this provision in the bill.
I think my point is relevant to subclause (a), and my suggestion deals with the fact mentioned in clause 2 (a), that broadcasting companies make use of radio frequencies that are public property.
Because these frequencies are public property, I ask the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to see to it that the Canadian Radio-Television Council also has control over the tariffs and prices charged these companies which operate on frequencies that are public property.
Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances, I think that my remarks are entirely relevant and in order.
I wonder then whether the Secretary of State could not take that suggestion into consideration and see to it that the new council control at the same time prices and rates of radio stations, since frequencies are of the public field.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We are now dealing with subclause (a) of clause 2, and not of the Canadian radio and television council. When we come to that clause, the hon. member will be able to express his views on that subject, and not make comparisons with the Transport Commission and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary is well taken. Since the committee has agreed to consider clause 2 in the order of the subclauses, the Chair must insist on the 
DEBATES	January 23, 1968
speakers confining their remarks to the subclause before the committee. Again, I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to co-operate with the Chair and to confine his remarks to clause 2(a) which is now before the committee for consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept that, all the more so because I have just noticed that clause 16 explains the powers of the Canadian Radio Council, and I will be able to come back to that point and then repeat this same argument.
I believe just the same that my remarks dealt not with the orders and definite regulations but with general principles broader than the powers of a council. I was only trying to have admitted as a general principle something that flows normally from clause 2(a). Since the airwaves are in the public domain, I feel that a council must control not only the issuance of licences but also set the rates.
I will come back again to clause 16 since I am forced to do it and I will then express my views on that matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(a) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We are now on clause 2, subclause (b) as amended by the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on subclause (c) of clause 2, unless subclause (b) is still being considered.


An hon. Member:: We are on subclause (b).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should advise the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac that the committee is now on clause 2(b) as amended by the committee. Shall clause 2(b) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We are now on clause 2, subclause (c).


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks to make with regard to subclause (c) of clause 2.
I feel that a group of citizens are being penalized for operating closed radio and
January 23, 1968

television circuits through cables. They are merely picking up the programs of broadcasting stations and retransmitting them by closed circuit.
On can read in subclause (c) the following:
All persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the public effects of the programs they broadcast-
So, Mr. Chairman, those who operate those closed circuits do not produce programs but, under the terms of subclause (c), they are responsible for the programs that are broadcast.
Therefore, I believe that a change should be made there, and that is why I wish to introduce an amendment to subclause (c).
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is unfair to hold responsible certain groups which merely retransmit programs broadcast by other stations. All these organizations broadcast programs of existing stations. Consequently these people do not produce programs. It should be clearly stipulated that these people should not be held responsible for abuses that might be committed by private or public stations.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 2 which reads as follows:
All persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the public effects of the programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
We should strike out the words:
...subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
and insert the following:
...the right, for all Canadians, to receive, by any means whatsoever, all the programs broadcast and available, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
That is the reason why I come up with this amendment and ask the minister to consider this matter seriously, because it involves people who are not responsible.
Moreover, it should be stipulated that, in such a bill as this one, those citizens are not held responsible.
That is the reason why this amendment must be made in order to protect the citizens who broadcast on the air in closed circuit and who do not give any programming, because they should not be held responsible for the abuses that might be committed by others.
27053-372J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I would therefore ask the hon. minister for her support in this matter. I think it is clear that we should stipulate that we will not hold responsible a certain class of society which operates various systems and which broadcasts programs on a closed circuit.
I thank the hon. minister and I ask her to give serious consideration to this matter. I ask her once again to accept this amendment which, in my opinion, is logical.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend is dealing exclusively with a closed circuit which does not pick programs off the air and which operates exclusively within one province, then he should be aware that the government of Canada through this parliament does not, according to the law officers of the crown, have the authority to legislate.
* (9:50 p.m.)
In this bill, and in this clause of the bill in particular, no reference is made to closed circuit broadcasting that is wholly within a province; that is, within the provincial domain. If this is the subject of the amendment then the amendment is completely unnecessary, since the matter is not covered.
If, on the other hand, my hon. friend is talking about C.A.T.V. systems and is hoping to exclude those operators from the bill, then I would have to disagree with him completely. Someone suggested that my hon. friend owns a cable system in his home town, and if he does he would certainly know what he is talking about. However, anyone who for gain operates such a system must be just as responsible as the person who actually broadcasts the program. He is just as responsible in the first instance for what is sent out over the airwaves.
As a result, I would disagree with the purpose of the amendment, in the event that the chairman found it in order. As I say, Mr. Chairman, if it is directed only to closed circuit television there is no need for such amendment, because the Broadcasting Act does not apply to such situation.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, only closed circuits and community antennas are involved.
So, I thank the Secretary of State for giving us her opinion.
January 23, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [English]


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think that many of us would be grateful to see a copy of this amendment. I say that because if the translation I heard was correct, it would appear to me there may be some argument whether it is in order.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the amendment could be put. We on this side also suffered the disability of not really understanding its purport.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I wonder whether the committee would agree to let clause 2 (c) stand until a translation of the amendment is available and proceed for the moment with clause 2 (d)?


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is agreeable to this side, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Then clause 2 (c) stands and the committee will pass on to clause 2 (d).


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if we look at the closing words of clause 2	(c) which
introduce the subsequent subclause, we find these words:
-subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations-
It is my opinion that the bill could be strengthened in a number of areas by adding a few words to several of the clauses, and clause 2 (d) is one of those clauses. These words will give much more authority to the administrators of the C.B.C. and would also make clause 2 (d) much more specific. It would in no way alter the meaning of the wording of clause 2 (d) that is in the bill, but I do believe the wording would be strengthened and make the legislation more specific.
I would therefore move:
That clause 2 (d) be amended by inserting after the words "public controversy" in line 5 the following:
"while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate consideration";
-and adding after the words "other resources" the words:
"while alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming".
Clause 2 fd) would then read as follows, Mr. Chairman.
"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, while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate


consideration, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources, while alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming".
I urge the minister to give consideration to these additions to clause 2 (d) because I believe they add strength to the clause and would be most acceptable to those who are responsible for the management and supervision of programming. I also trust that other members of the committee recognize their apparent value to this particular part of the clause.
Through error I find I have insufficient copies of the amendment to pass to the various party representatives; I am sending to the table two copies and I have a third here.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, since we do not have sufficient copies to enable us to study the amendment this evening this might be a very good point to call it ten o'clock. We will take a fresh look at the matter tomorrow afternoon.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is it
agreed that this question be held over until the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


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

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, few subjects have been discussed in this parliament so regularly, although recently with an appalling sense of frustration, indeed dismay, as increases in pensions for retired public servants, including the armed forces and
January 23, 1968	COMMONS
the R.C.M.P. Upon no subject has the government been so evasive, so dilatory, so ready to talk out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, some members of the government have sought to pay lip service to the needs of justice for these dedicated men and women who gave of their best for Canada. On the other hand, the government has victimized them, required them to be the principal sufferers of the government's austerity program, an austerity program for which the cabinet's own unconquerable urge to extravagance is solely responsible.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a selective cutback in expenditure is necessary as a technique of battling inflation; but I emphasize the word "selective".
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Why the principal victims of inflation should be made further victims by a refusal of adjustment in pensions passes my understanding. The very people who need the adjustment most are those to whom this government has first denied it. The issue is as simple as that.
No spokesman for the government, Mr. Speaker, has ever answered one simple question. Why have all other countries in the western world been able to adjust the pensions of their retired public servants, without harming their economies or violating any contractual principle? Canada alone has refused to adjust the pensions of its retired public servants.


Mr. Churchill:: That is right.


Richard Albert Bell: There was one exception in this country, for which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the former minister of finance, Hon. Donald M. Fleming, with a little prodding from the member for Carleton, were responsible, namely, the pension adjustment act of 1958. If that could be done in 1958, it can be done in 1968. If Britain, the United States, France, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Australia, New Zealand and most of our provinces can make adjustments and give justice and equity to their retired public servants why, Mr. Speaker, must our government place only roadblocks in the way of the adoption of a unanimous report of a committee of both houses of this parliament, a report which was in favour of increases? I submit that the government has proved itself guilty of contempt of parliament by ignoring a unanimous joint report. Equally, it is guilty of a gross betrayal
DEBATES	5895
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the men and women who gave the best years of their lives in dedicated service to Canada.
The government has refused to say even whether it accepts the principle of a pension increase. Every question that has been asked on this subject has been turned aside with double talk.
There is a fabulous balance, practically and actuarially, in the various superannuation funds. Personally, I should prefer to have increases paid directly from the consolidated revenue fund. I point out that merely by adjusting the out of date interest rate of 4 per cent, which is allowed to the funds, to a rate of 6 per cent, which the government now pays for other borrowed money, the government could pay for the increases many times over. I resent that the government is borrowing today, from public servants present and retired, at 2 per cent less than it is borrowing from insurance companies, trust companies and others from whom it is borrowing.
Sir, is there a real problem, or was the joint committee merely fanning the air on this subject. I wish that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) would read the letters that I receive. Is this a problem, sir? Ah, sir, it is desperation for many.
Examine the tables which appear on page 5253 of Hansard for December 11. Does the house realize that 3,719 widows receive less than $30 a month, that 5,741 widows receive less than $40 a month and that 7,412 widows receive less than $50 a month? It is all very well for those who are comfortably fixed to say that these pension figures represent short term services by deceased husbands. The truth is that these statistics represent the hardships which the widows of men who served Canada well are now undergoing, largely because of inflationary trends in the nation.
Rather unfortunately, I thought, the Prime Minister gave renewed hope for retired civil servants; but he mixed that up with pensions for Members of Parliament. Of two issues which are less connected I cannot think. I mention the matter to express the hope that further delay to retired public servants will not be occasioned by this unfortunate juxtaposition of totally incomparable issues.
Sir, the austerity program is no excuse for lack of action, much overdue action, to bring about equality and fair play for those dedicated Canadians of whom I speak. Once again,
January 23, 1968
5896	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion as I have done so many times in the past, I plead with the government for immediate and effective action.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, since the questions of the hon. members for Carle ton and Winnipeg North Centre are almost identical, I ask the indulgence of the house to answer both questions at the same time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to hear the minister first. I have the right to ask my question separately.


Edgar John Benson: If this is the case, if my hon. friend insists, I shall refrain from making any reply at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is arrogance personified.


Edgar John Benson: I shall answer both questions together. They are the same question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister does not know that the questions will be the same.


Edgar John Benson: Well, look at them.


Richard Albert Bell: I am entitled to an answer from the minister. The minister's refusal to answer is undoubtedly the most arrogant attitude I have ever seen in this house.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, these are identical questions and they have been brought up in this house on ten or 12 occasions. I will answer them both at the same time, and if the hon. member says they are not identical I would ask him to read Hansard and see for himself that they are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That does not mean they will be approached in the same way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. There is no rule which obliges the minister to reply if he does not wish to reply. If the minister gives an undertaking to reply to both questions at once it is his prerogative to do so.


PUBLIC SERVICE-PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had seen and heard just about everything on the part of this government with respect to its attitude toward retired civil servants, but we have had another chapter tonight.


The minister's statement that he is prepared to answer both the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and myself at the same time is just hogwash and he knows it.


Edgar John Benson: I will take six minutes if the house will give them to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister does not have six minutes in which to answer both questions. He has three minutes to answer each one, if he wishes to do so. His attitude demonstrates that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) and the government he represents have no heart, no feeling for those on whose behalf we are speaking when we raise this issue.
We have had a long series of promises and statements which have built up the hopes of these people. There have been promises made on the floor of this house, promises in the committee, promises made privately. Yet the government goes on ignoring these people and putting off action on this important issue. I really did not think there could be another piece of arrogance added to what we have already seen, but we have had it tonight.
Mr. Speaker, the story is a long one. You, sir, must be aware of it because of the nature of the constituency you have the honour to represent. Let me repeat what the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has said. A joint committee of both houses recommended unanimously that there should be immediate increases in the pensions of retired civil servants, retired R.C.M.P. personnel and retired armed forces personnel. This recommendation was not only unanimous, it called for action to be taken immediately. We were promised throughout May and June last year that the matter was under active consideration and that something would be done. When, on July 7, I protested vigorously against the house recessing for the summer without anything being done, we were assured action would be taken in the fall. The fall came, and the issue was dragged on and on. Then came the so-called economy drive and the minister's speech on the night of December 7 in which he listed these increases among the things which had to be postponed because of the so-called need for economy.
I do not think this is the reason at all. I think the reason is that there are ministers in this cabinet who simply do not believe in the idea of escalating pensions. They are afraid that if they do so in the case of retired civil servants a precedent will be established which private industry will have to follow.
January 23, 1968	COMMONS
The day will come, Mr. Speaker, when all pensions will have to be escalated after they have been put into pay, or our whole pension structure will collapse.
The day after the President of Treasury Board announced that these increases would be delayed the hon. member for Carleton and I both put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). It was a simple one: would this matter be reconsidered. The Prime Minister replied to both of us on December 8, expressing the hope that it would soon be possible to reconsider this decision.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
A few days later, on December 15, I put the question to the Prime Minister again, and I did so on that occasion just after he had announced that he was going to resign as prime minister of Canada. I asked my question very pointedly, asking him if he would do his best to see to it that this reconsideration would take place before he leaves office as Prime Minister. His answer, as recorded at page 5474 of Hansard for that date, was very clear, and I quote:
-I think I have stated that we hope the situation will be such that we will be able to reconsider sympathetically this very difficult problem. I hope the situation will so improve during the remainder of my period on this side as Prime Minister that this may be possible.
The Prime Minister added a sentence to which, if possible, I take stronger exception than was taken by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), but that need not be repeated to muddy the waters. The fact is that the Prime Minister, who is the head of the government, was asked that this matter be dealt with before his term of office ends. That is now only two or three months away, and we know in this parliament what happens when this government stalls. I say that unless we get a firm answer from the President of the Treasury Board tonight that this reconsideration is being given and that something will be done before the Prime Minister retires, then all we have is another case of downright betrayal on the part of the government of the retired civil servants of this country.
When the government betrays the retired civil servants by denying them an increase in their pensions, an increase necessary because of rises in the cost of living and rises in the standard of living, it is saying it does not believe in this principle, and it is torpedoing the effectiveness and the value of our whole pension system. The issue immediately at
DEBATES	5897
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion stake is the need of the retired civil servants themselves. But there is a much broader one that I call on the President of the Treasury Board to recognize. It is that we can no longer expect people to live in retirement ten, 20, or 30 years on fixed pensions.
We have found a way to do many things. We have to find a way to increase pensions of retired civil servants, and I call on the President of the Treasury Board for a decent, responsible, honest answer tonight.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am very willing to give a decent, honourable and respectable answer. This and the previous question are identical, and I regret that hon. members opposite would not give me the six minutes I requested to answer the question fully.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I philosophically support a variation in pensions based on changes in the cost of living.


Richard Albert Bell: Does the government?


Edgar John Benson: And the government does too. This is the first government in the western world that has recognized this philosophical point of view, as proven by the Canada Pension Plan and supplementary old age pensions.
Second, I would like to point out to my hon. friend, who talks about variation in pensions, that only one or two industries in Canada-and I have been searching for support in this regard-have ever varied pensions from the fixed amount involved, but no labour union in this country has ever done it.
I would also like to say that every person in this country-and here I am concerned with statements as to how much individuals get-whether he be a retired civil servant, a retired steel worker, or a retired worker who swept the streets is entitled, because of the action of this government, to a minimum income when he is entitled to an old age pension of $105 a month attached to the cost of living index. So, the statistics which prove people get $30 a month or $40 a month do not mean very much because this government has instituted a guaranteed annual income for people who are retired and who are entitled to old age pensions, which is moving down to age 65.
I would also like to say that every country in the world has not adjusted its pensions. Further, I would like to tell the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that the position in Canada is different from what it was in 1958
January 23, 1968
5898	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion when retired people were entitled to a flat rate old age pension of $55 a month. Every retired person in Canada now who is entitled to an old age pension, is entitled to a minimum of $105 a month attached to the cost of living index, something which was brought forward by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: I have been accused of being disrespectful and of being arrogant. With respect to the report of the committee I have indicated that I believe in this on a philosophical basis, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the government is responsible for its actions. Committees cannot dictate to government what the government must do. The government must accept responsibility to the people of Canada for its actions.
I would also like to say that there is no balance actuarially in the old age pension fund. As a matter of fact the previous government of which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) was a member let a huge deficit build up in this fund which civil servants complained about across this whole country. This was one of the reasons that government was defeated. We have made up the actuarial deficit in the civil service pension fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I have the other three minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I request that the minister be given the other three minutes on the condition that he answer the question which both of us asked; the question was: is the matter closed or is it still under consideration?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent which my arrogant friends opposite refused to give earlier I will carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. The hon. President of the Treasury Board would have to have unanimous consent. I doubt that a condition should be imposed upon him concerning what he should say. If the house gives unanimous consent, I think he should have freedom in answering.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will give my consent and hope that he will answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: It is very nice to know that hon. members opposite are not now as arrogant as they were five minutes ago in respect of my answering their questions. The hon. member for Carleton said that the government fans the air. I assure everyone in this house that no one fans the air on this matter more than he does in trying to justify the position taken by his government when the retired people of this country had $55 a month guaranteed income and now have $105 a month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What did they get before we came in? You are the six buck boys.


Edgar John Benson: We may have been the six buck boys when we went from $45 to $51, but I would like to remind my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that since we became a government in 1963 we have gone from $65 to $105 guaranteed income for the retired people of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You put in the means test.


Edgar John Benson: I would simply like to say in respect to the matter of promises which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whom I have the greatest respect, that I do not think he can ever find in anything I have said in this house any promises of the government. In respect of the specific question he wishes to have answered I should like to say that so long as I am a member of this government this question will never be out of mind and will be continuously under consideration because I philosophically believe-which I am not sure my hon. friend does-that pensions in Canada should be attached to an index so that the income of retired people does not decrease because of any increase in the cost of living. I philosophically believe in this, and I am not sure that the member for Carleton would agree with me.


Richard Albert Bell: You cannot eat
philosophy.


Edgar John Benson: Would my hon. friend admit he agrees that pension funds should be attached to the cost of living or the wage index?


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the wage index, yes.
January 23, 1968


Thomas Miller Bell: I have advocated that tor years.


Edgar John Benson: I would simply like to assure my hon. friends from Winnipeg North Centre and Carleton-and I hope the hon. member for Carleton can carry the Tory party on this -that I believe in this philosophically and the question will never be dropped so long as I am a member of this government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Still no answer.
o (10:20 p.m.)


HEALTH AND WELFARE-SUGGESTED INITIATION OF CAMPAIGN AGAINST ALCOHOLISM
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on November 20 last I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
Could he tell the house whether the government intends to finance a publicity campaign from the proceeds of liquor taxes to inform the public of the dangers of alcoholism?
Mr. Speaker, I did not obtain an answer to my question then, because it was ruled out of order. This is why I have asked to discuss it at ten o'clock and, this evening, I hope that I will obtain a satisfactory answer from the representative of the minister, because I think that every member of the house is aware of the harmful effects of alcoholism in Canada.
In 1955, the number of alcoholics in Canada was estimated at approximately 158,000, and according to the figures released for 1965, their number has reached 350,000. This points to an alarming outbreak of alcoholism which has disastrous effects for Canada, first through a lost of efficiency at work and a decrease in the professional output of alcoholics and a general laxity in social conduct.
We also know that excessive drinking largely contributes to traffic accidents resulting every year in many deaths and disabilities. We are aware that it causes considerable loss of time, and what affects everybody, I believe, both alcoholics and abstainers, is the increase in insurance for the protection of motorists. This increase affects everyone and we are indirectly victims of alcoholism in Canada.
On the other hand, we also know that alcoholism brings on all kinds of illnesses filling up our hospitals and our sanatoriums. We also know that, in a large measure, our jails are filled with alcoholic subjects.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
So, Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, together with the president general of the Association Lacordaire du Canada, I am asking the government to help the groups and organizations fighting alcoholism in Canada.
We know that in 1965 revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages yielded $281 million to the federal government, and we also know that the same year the federal government had not spent a single cent to fight alcoholism or inform the people on the problems of alcoholism in Canada.
At this stage, I would now like to quote the remarks made by Dr. Charland, president of the Association Lacordaire du Canada, during the national anti-alcoholism week held from November 12 to 18, 1967, as reported in the newspapers:
The time has come for our governments, federal as well as provincial, to ponder the seriousness of the problem of alcoholism in order to draw up a real balance-sheet, that is to say establish clearly what the sale of alcoholic beverages brings in taxes, etc. and, on the other hand, what it costs in medical care, social benefits, loss of time, energy, health, etc. The time has come also for the governments to dip into the millions of dollars they get from the sale of alcoholic beverages to rectify and offset through objective information the noisy campaign now under way to sell those beverages, without neglecting at the same time to bring that advertising back within the limits of common sense and the common good.
Mr. Chairman, these remarks made by Dr. Charland are sensible and I think the government should draw from revenues derived from the sale of alcoholic beverages sums which could be made available to organizations which, everywhere in Canada, are fighting against alcoholism and informing the people on the ill effects of alcohol.
I think that the government should consider favourably representations made by associations, such as Lacordaire and others, requesting grants to help them fight more effectively the harmful results of alcoholism and have people better informed against the use of alcoholic beverages.
We know that distillers and brewers take advantage of advertising to show the bright side of drinking, but we must also show the dark side of the picture so that the public will be well informed.
Therefore, I hope that the government and the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare will give favourable consideration to this request made by our antialcoholic associations.

January 23. 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare has no specific program on this subject but it has assisted provinces in a variety of ways for many years. This assistance has included grants for services, for training of personnel and for research studies related to the problem of alcoholism. In addition to this support, and in keeping with the modern attitude which considers alcoholism as a disease and a personality defect, the mental health division has given the subject continuing attention over the years in the following ways:
(a)	Public education. The division has produced a ten page pamphlet entitled "Alcoholism", in both English and French. This pamphlet has been issued for use by the provinces through the health educator and has had rather wide distribution.
(b)	A film, "Profile of a Problem Drinker", sponsored by the Ontario department of health was produced a few years ago through mental health grant funds and professional co-ordination of the mental health division.
(c)	A survey, "Government Programs on Alcoholism", a 90-page study of the activities in some foreign countries, sponsored by the mental health division and prepared by an international authority, the late Dr. E. M. Jellinek.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, January 24, 1968