1968-01-26

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notice of
Motion:
January 24, 1968-The Minister of Industry (for the Minister of Finance)-That the standing committee on transport and communications be empowered to consider and report upon all aspects of transportation as they relate to the Atlantic provinces, taking account of the conclusions and recommendations of the Atlantic provinces transportation study, January, 1967, volumes 1 to 12, prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, and the report of the royal commission on transportation, 1961, volumes 1 and 2, and recommend what measures should be initiated in order that the national transportation policy may be as fully implemented as possible in the Atlantic provinces.
That the said committee shall examine, in particular, the effectiveness of the Maritime Freight Rates Act with power to study and make recommendations concerning:
(a)	changes or alterations which may now be desirable in the Maritime Freight Rates Act; and
(b)	alternative methods of assisting transportation in the Atlantic provinces either in addition to the Maritime Freight Rates Act or in substitution therefor in whole or in part with the purpose that maximum benefits be obtained by the Atlantic provinces from he expenditure being made.
That for the purposes of this inquiry, the said committee shall be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada; that the clerk and necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany said committee, and that the committee be authorized to engage the services of counsel, accountants, etc.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting
Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation developing between the United States and North Korea will the government make a full statement on that matter, preferably on Monday so that parliament and the people of Canada will know the facts and, in particular, what Canada's position is and will be?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the helpful way in which he has phrased his question. The Security Council will be called into urgent session this afternoon at the initiative of the ambassador of the United States to the United Nations. I think that this is a situation where prudence and cool heads will be required.
The Security Council has an obligation in matters that threaten the peace or where there is a violation of the peace. The fact that one of the major powers in the world, the United States, should seek the assistance of the United Nations in overcoming this difficult problem by diplomacy is something I am sure to be welcomed by the Security Council as well as by all of us. Our ambassador has been instructed to use his influence and his presence on the council to see that diplomatic methods are resorted to in trying to meet this difficult and tense situation.
It might be useful for the Security Council to consider a parallel situation when the former secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, suggested that someone representing him might be sent to China to deal with the situation and to avoid the use of any but peaceful means. It may be that in this situation the Security Council will want to give consideration to the dispatch of someone representing the Secretary General.
I assure my hon. friend that the Canadian government is following the matter very closely. I hope to be seeing the United States ambassador right after orders of the day. I assure my hon. friend and the house that the government is fully conscious of the situation and is following it very carefully.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, while I know the house welcomes the fact that it is being given information, the request from our house leader was that the minister might make a full
January 26, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry statement on Monday, of course on motions. The minister has complied with the request now, but we are on the orders of the day.
The matter is sufficiently serious, and the interest and responsibility of members is sufficiently grave that, in view of the course followed by the minister, I should like to suggest that we might now revert to motions. He could complete his statement on motions and then there could be comments from representatives of the other parties in the house.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my hon. friend has said. I do not have anything further to add at this time. After the meeting of the Security Council today it might be that we could revert to motions; if not, I would follow the suggestion that I make a more complete statement on Monday.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Security Council is meeting today I think it is incumbent upon the government to give us some information at this time concerning what position the Canadian representatives at the United Nations will be taking in respect of the Pueblo incident. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Canada will be taking the position that this seizure of a United States ship by the North Korean naval forces constitutes an isolated alleged violation of the freedom of the seas or whether the Canadian government takes the position that this action is a violation of the Korean armistice agreement signed in 1953 and therefore constitutes, in the terms of that agreement, a renewal of the armed attack and challenges the principles of the United Nations. It would seem to be important that Canada's position in this regard be made clear at once.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will agree that this is a situation in respect of which we ought to be careful about the judgments we make. There is the position put forward by the United States, as I said the day before yesterday, that the ship was not plying in the territorial seas of North Korea. This is a matter of fact which undoubtedly will be discussed in the United Nations Security Council. There have been some allegations of violations on the other side. I do not wish to prejudge these. Until there has been the fullest examination I think it would be wise to suspend judgment.
[Mr. Fulton.)

It is this kind of situation I had in mind when I observed that it might be desirable at some point for a representative of the Secretary General himself to go to the area. Then we would have to see what developments follow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was not asking the minister to make a judgment concerning whether or not there had been a violation of freedom of the seas. I was asking whether or not the Canadian government considers this to be a separate act in dispute between the United States government and North Korea, or whether he considers it to be a violation of the Korean armistice of 1953 and therefore that Canada would have a responsibility to deal with any violation of that agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day this seems to be a matter which does not involve the United Nations directly, or Canada as a component of the United Nations force. The ship in question was not, I believe, under the command of the United Nations in Korea. However, this will be a question that the other side will dispute and it is a matter which will have to be examined. I did refer to the allegation of certain other violations. These too may come within the purport of the agreement, not the agreement of 1957 but that of July 27, 1953.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is casting a doubt on the statement of the United States government that the ship was in international and not in North Korean waters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I have said anything that would in any way cast doubt on the position taken by the United States.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understood the minister to say there was an allegation by the United States. Is there not anything more positive than that?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I said there was an allegation that the Pueblo was plying in the territorial sea off North Korea. I did not say we agreed with that, but I said that was the allegation made. This undoubtedly will be one of the facts to be examined by the Security Council. I want to clearly indicate, and I am sure my hon. friend in this matter, so
January 26, 1968
important as it is to the peace, will not want to add to the difficulty, that we have not in any way indicated that the position taken by the United States is not one that can be substantiated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Every time a question is asked here that disturbs the minister for external affairs he suggests the person asking the question is not in favour of peace. I reject that allegation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is not the first time I have heard this from the minister. I will stand with anybody on my record here in respect of maintaining peace in the world. We are entitled to ask questions and entitled to get clear statements from the minister. He has suggested to us that there is some doubt as to whether the statement of the United States government is clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then he attempts to accuse me of falsifying the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the complex issues and the fact that perhaps international laws are involved in an incident of this sort, whether our representative at the Security Council will suggest that, in addition perhaps to other interim actions, the complex issues be referred either to the world court or some other international tribunal which could take a judicial approach to this matter?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I do not preclude any possible action, but it may be that this situation is so important, requiring immediate attention, that action by the world court would not be helpful. I am not saying that this is the case.
Let me assure my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), that he has misunderstood me in this instance.
I was not making any suggestion about his concern; I was simply trying as carefully as I could in the face of this situation not to complicate a matter that now will be considered by the Security Council, in the hope
Inquiries of the Ministry that a pacific means will be used to resolve a problem that is of great danger.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in asking the first question in a responsible way was in the hope that we would get a concise statement on Monday relevant to all the facts of the situation, and particularly in relation to what Canada's position will be. I hope the minister meant by all his words that he will make such a statement on Monday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker; my hon. friend may be sure of that.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Ontario, I intended to refrain from asking questions until Monday with the hope that the minister might make a complete statement. In view of the number of questions that have been asked this morning can the minister now tell us whether the government of Canada has been informed by the government of the United States as to the location of the Pueblo when it was seized and, if so, does the government of Canada accept this statement or information from the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is aware of the position taken by the United States, and I would have no reason to take issue with the United States statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the position of the ship?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who reports to the house on behalf of harbour commissioners. In view of its urgency and importance to the city of Vancouver, north Vancouver and west Vancouver, will the minister advise us when we can expect a report on the engineering studies and a departmental decision on the construction of a tunnel or bridge relative to the new public transportation crossing over Bur-rard inlet between Vancouver and the north shore? The government has agreed to accept certain responsibility in respect of this most important matter.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Very soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker.

January 26, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what very soon means?


Michael Starr: In due course.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Within a matter of days.


Michael Starr: How many days?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production, but he just left the house for a short time; I will wait until he returns to put my question.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the firm date that has now been announced for the federation conference, together with the publication of the proposed agenda, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is considering making arrangements, or discussing with the other parties in the house the possibility of adjourning the house so that members of parliament might participate as observers in this very important conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of adjournment, I am not in a position to say anything definite. I think I did say to the hon. member for Ontario today that the question of observer status mentioned earlier by the Prime Minister was a matter in respect of which he will be giving a definite reply when he returns, which I hope now will be on Monday.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the portion of the conference which will deal with regional economic disparities will be open to public view and public study?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot reply to that question at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's assurance on December 18 last that 

when matters of direct importance to Canadians living above the 60th parallel who do not live in the provinces are before the conference, they will, in the Prime Minister's words, be directly represented there, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister can give us his assurance that members of the councils of both territories will be invited to attend these sessions as observers.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would like to take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister consider making on Monday a statement outlining the actions of the Bank of Canada in setting the secondary reserves provided for under the Bank Act?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take that request under consideration.



CUT-BACK IN FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Victoria-Carle-ton):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the house whether a part of the present financial austerity program is a request to the provinces to cut back or even to eliminate certain joint federal provincial programs, particularly those of a flexible nature.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked a similar question yesterday and I categorized it as being rather mysterious. I would much prefer to answer a specific question about some specific program. We have so many shared cost programs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in this regard. When the hon. member for Wellington South asked a question about a specific program, the question was disallowed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister
January 26, 1968

of Finance to be less mysterious with regard to this matter. The question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris yesterday and the one asked today have not been answered. Have any of the cost-sharing programs with the provinces been reduced by the federal government suggesting to the provinces that the federal contribution will not be proceeded with this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think this is the kind of question which should be placed on the order paper. It will take a good deal of research to answer it. But if there is some specific matter in which the opposition is interested, I will be only too happy to find answers. Their questions reflect a sort of general approach which they hope will turn up something of interest.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and notice has already been given. Is it the intention of the government to scrap the plans to build the Queen Elizabeth II telescope on Mount Kobau in the Okanagan-Similkameen area of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that this question should be placed on the order paper.


David Vaughan Pugh: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there was a news item yesterday which suggested this, and I have received many, many requests from British Columbia for information on this matter. I have taken the matter up with the minister and he asked that the question be put today. I think he has an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose I should join in the conspiracy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -and allow the answer.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention, but in view of the need for budgetary cuts, and after careful study, we
Inquiries of the Ministry down for this year without serious consequences to the program as a whole. About $500,000 was retained in my department's budget for the fiscal year 1968-69 in order to proceed with the design and planning for construction.
In the meantime I have proposed that a small working committee of senior scientists be convened by the science secretariat to look into the whole subject of government support of astronomical research in Canada and to make recommendations on the development of the Queen Elizabeth II telescope in that context.


Mr. G. L. Chatierfon (Esquimali-Saanich):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure us that the slowdown will not result in the loss of the highly qualified personnel required for this work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We hope that by having only a slowdown we will be able to keep the very competent personnel associated with this program.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the press reports that the prices of gasoline and domestic heating oil have been raised in western Canada and the oil companies are considering also raising prices in eastern Canada, would the minister inform the house whether either his department or, to his knowledge, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is investigating these price increases or proposed price increases in view of the guide lines which the minister issued to industry, labour and others to hold the prices down?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my officials to inquire into the reasons for these price increases.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the minister correctly, he said he asked his officials to look into the matter. Am I correct in assuming that there is no report on it yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I only read the Queen Elizabeth II telescope and the the reports recently and that is why I asked buildings associated with it could be slowed my officials to inquire into them immediately
97ns*?_*?7n	J *
January 26, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR REACTIVATION OF COMMITTEE TO STUDY COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for corporate and consumer affairs. In his absence may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary? In view of increasing prices can the minister say whether he intends to reactivate the committee which last year inquired into the cost of living in Canada? If so, when will it resume its hearings?


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and give an answer later.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I am sure the Acting Prime Minister will be pleased to accept it. In view of the present decline in the prices of pork and beef paid to the producers, could the minister explain why the government is considering the importation of frozen beef from Argentina?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps the Solicitor General would deal with it. It relates to the reported arrest of Mr. Wilson, or Mr. Allo-way, who is alleged to have taken part in a train robbery in the United Kingdom. I should like to ask the minister whether a request has been made by the United Kingdom authorities for the extradition of this man, or is the situation at present confined to the immigration hearing in relation to his possible deportation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 

with the concurrence of the Solicitor General I will try to deal with the question in my capacity as acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. An inquiry is being held today into the circumstances under which Wilson, the mail-train robber, entered Canada under a different name. Until the inquiry has been completed I think it is desirable that we refrain from further observations. Whether extradition proceedings become necessary will, of course, depend on the outcome of inquiries being conducted by immigration officials.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question was whether extradition proceedings had yet been instigated. I take it, from the minister's answer, that they have not been.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is my understanding.



THE LATE DR. LEOPOLD INFELD-CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not
know whether the dry run is over but may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Have the children of the late Dr. Leopold Infeld been told that they can resume their Canadian citizenship, which they lost when their father's citizenship was revoked? Will others in similar circumstances be accorded a similar privilege?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secreiary of State):: No doubt my hon. friend is speaking of what has appeared in certain newspaper and television reports. He has not put the matter correctly. They have not been informed that citizenship is available to them as of right. Under the current law they must prepare a declaration of intention and a declaration of request which the minister in charge of citizenship-I am that minister at the moment -has to consider. What is in course of preparation is a letter to these young people advising them that if they are prepared to file such declaration of intent, and to take up residence and make this their home, then I am prepared to favourably consider their application for reinstatement of citizenship.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister deal with the second part of the question and say whether there are others, also children of people, whose citizenship was taken away and who will receive similar notification?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this depends on the circumstances. I do
January 26, 1968

not think that Canadian citizenship is a matter to be handed out lightly. I also do not think that the sins of the fathers must necessarily be visited upon their children. If there are such similar cases, then I am prepared, and I think the people of Canada would be prepared, to return citizenship where it has been lost not as the result of the children's fault. I would be prepared to look at the circumstances of any case where it has been lost.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister answer the question that I asked him on Wednesday, particularly since grave concern has been expressed by those who live in regions near the St. Lawrence, as evidenced by this morning's newspapers? My question to the minister was whether he would investigate complaints to the effect that this year the excessive icebreaking may in itself cause extra flooding in the spring?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a complete report from my officials about the matter and I hope to have it some time over the week end. This year conditions on the St. Lawrence are described as unusual, and in view of that I have asked for a full technical report to cover all aspects of the situation, so that complete information is available for hon. members and others who are interested.


Mr. Roberl McCleave (Halifax):: My question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. Would the minister in his study also consider compensation to be paid for those home owners whose homes have been damaged as a result of icebreaking operations in the St. Lawrence river?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Without prejudice to the situation we will, of course, look into all aspects of the matter.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinfe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether the report he requested from his department will include the first days of the

Inquiries of the Ministry cold season? Could he also tell us whether he intends to make a statement in the house next Monday, on motions, concerning this report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it will cover all aspects, including the one that has just been mentioned by my hon. friend. Whether a statement will be ready by Monday I cannot say until I have the report. Nevertheless, I shall consider the advisability of making a statement.



SYDNEY, N.S.-REPLY BY MINISTER CONCERNING PILOTAGE STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps I might answer a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir). He asked, first, whether the department intends to remove the pilotage station from North Sydney-in other words to change the base. At present the eight pilots are divided into two four-man watches who man the station 24 hours a day, week on and week off. There is living accommodation for them on the station and the pilot boat is based there. Their dispatch instructions come from the pilotage office in Sydney.
Modern methods of communication make it possible for ships to advise the pilotage office of their expected time of arrival well in advance of the time when a pilot is needed and, consequently, it is no longer necessary to maintain a visual lookout at pilot stations. We have therefore closed many of the stations that previously provided living accommodation, and pilots are now dispatched directly from their homes. This system is to be implemented in Sydney within the next few months. The base of operation for the pilot boat will continue to be North Sydney, and pilots will be transported to and from their assignments on the boat operating from its present location.
The hon. member has also asked whether the department intends to remove the services of pilots from Sydney harbour. The department recognizes the continuing need for a pilotage service in Sydney harbour and: there is no intention of doing away with this service.
January 26, 1968
S014	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



COURT RULING TRACING LUNG CANCER TO CIGARETTE SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended directing my question to the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In their absence possibly someone on the government side might take it as notice. My question is as to whether the ministers are aware of the significant United States appeal court ruling yesterday in which a cigarette company is held liable for the lung cancer death of a cigarette smoker? Further, would the departments concerned in this matter keep an eye on the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his representation to the government. I do not think the question can be accepted at this time.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: My
question is for the Minister of Public Works. Since the minister informed me in a written reply on June 12 that the repairs to a fence around the medium security penal institution in Springhill would cost $7,950, would he explain to the house how those same repairs could now cost $96,000, as he announced today? Even with the degree of inflation that is in evidence today, this amount appears to be excessive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argumentative question and cannot be asked in its present form.



VANCOUVER-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the presently heavy and potentially increasing unemployment of construction workers in British Columbia due in part to the phasing out of major power and pulp mill projects, will the minister give serious consideration to advancing the date for the commencement of the construction of a three phase project in connection with the new federal building concept in Vancouver?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question, though important, can be asked at this time. If the hon. member considers there is urgency in the matter he might give notice of consideration at the time of adjournment.


Harold Edward Winch: I do so now, Mr. Speaker. NORTHERN AFFAIRS



ROADS TO RESOURCES-INQUIRY AS TO SUBSTITUTE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is perhaps supplementary to the one asked earlier today by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, and it is directed to the Minister of Finance. On October 31 last, motivated by a government announcement that the roads to resources program was to be discontinued, I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would consider instituting a similar program. The Prime Minister said that the government is considering the provision of assistance to the provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should ask his question and not go through the entire history of the matter.


Robert Simpson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I intend to point out that the Prime Minister announced that the government was considering a similar program when economic conditions make it desirable to do so. My question to the minister is whether the government feels that economic conditions for that program are now desirable, or when does the government feel they may become desirable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts about that question. I do not think it is acceptable.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he report on Monday whether progress has been made toward ratification of the International Joint Commission report by the governments of Canada and the United States on the Pembina river project?


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as the Canadian government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think I
January 26, 1968

can say that we have made some progress. I shall ascertain what is the position of the United States.



UNITED STATES SURVEY CREW IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask him whether at present any United States army or civilian water survey crew is working in northern Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government received formal requests from any western provinces asking that the Company of Young Canadians be withdrawn from activities in those provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware that there are any formal requests, though I have seen some suggestions to that effect in the newspapers.


Howard Earl Johnston: Has a reported drive for charitable funds on behalf of the Company of Young Canadians, to replace the $400,000 reduction in the budget allocation, been submitted to the government for approval?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware of that fact but I shall try to ascertain whether it is true.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: My
question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport had an opportunity for a dry run at the top job, is it the intention of their party to provide equal opportunities to other aspirants for the job, prior to April 6?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Why call it a dry run? I do not know why my hon. friend calls it a dry run.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



INTERPRETATION OF PICARD REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and to ask him whether any clarification has been made of the interpretation of the Picard report as it affects the Montreal dock situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the injunction matter arising out of differences in interpretation of the report is still pending in the court of appeal of the province of Quebec. Furthermore, as I said in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace a few days ago, the contracts, as modified by the Picard commission, have run out as of December 31. Further negotiations have commenced, however. A conciliator has been appointed to assist the parties, and the Picard report is one of the items that is being dealt with during the course of these new negotiations.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. Will it be fair to assume from the statement just made by the minister that the interpretation of the Picard report is not yet clarified?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think that is a fair assumption, Mr. Speaker. That is one matter which will eventually be determined when the decision of the court of appeal in Quebec is handed down. I am sure that other questions requiring clarification will be dealt with when the new agreements are entered into.



KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY-ALLEGED FAILURE IN INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received representations from the employees of the Kettle Valley railway stating that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not interpreting their collective agreement properly and asking for his intervention?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, during
January 26, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry my absence in the early part of the afternoon session yesterday the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona directed a question to the Acting Prime Minister asking why copies of the Murchison inquiry report have not been made available to members, since it has been made public.
I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Murchison inquiry took place as the result of a ministerial order made by me as Minister of Labour under section 35 of the Labour Standards Act. In accordance with the usual practice, copies of reports of such inquiry commissioners are made available to people who make representations before the commissioners but are not made available to members of parliament or others interested except on request. If the hon. member or any other hon. member of the house would like a copy of the Murchison report, I will be glad to supply one on application to me or to my Office.


David Vaughan Pugh: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could many of the ministerial speeches that are sent out be dropped from members' lists, unless also requested?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought that I had had such a request from the hon. member for copies.


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the answer given to the question posed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, has the report of the task force appointed by the Prime Minister, to which reference was made in Hansard on December 1, I believe it was, been completed, and is it available to members and others interested who make application for a copy?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this question should really be addressed to the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister, but in the interest of saving time I can say that an interim report has been submitted. While it is not usual or customary to table copies of interim reports that are submitted for the information and guidance of the government, in this particular case I believe the Prime Minister does intend to table the report. It is now being translated and will be tabled by the Prime Minister in due course.


Harold Raymond Ballard: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the report of the Freedman commission is available, would the


minister consider holding up the introduction of Bill No. C-186 until members have had a chance to study this report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 

BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequential and related provisions-Miss La-Marsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 (d), with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond, was under discussion. Clause 2
(c)	was allowed to stand. The committee is now considering clause 2 (d)
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it would be helpful, but I point out that the committee might consider the fact that we are now on the thirteenth day of our deliberations of this bill. If one adds the 12 days which the parliamentary committee on films, broadcasting and assistance to the arts took to consider the bill clause by clause, the total comes to 25 days, and as one who is deeply interested in and concerned about the efficient management of parliamentary business I feel we all have an obligation to exercise a bit of restraint and self-discipline. This is no criticism of the speeches which have been made; it relates, rather, to the way in which the debate has been developing.
I was interested to note that in the United Kingdom parliament, many of whose rules we have adopted in our own system, they were able last week to dissolve the last remnants of the British empire in the course of a debate which lasted two days and during which speeches were made by the principal people in the house including the prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the
January 26, 1968

Liberal party. In that time the British house considered the far reaching policy implications of the government decision and had a vote on the issue.
I am not suggesting for one minute, of course, that a bill as important as this one in connection with broadcasting could be given such brief treatment but I do feel, and I mean this very sincerely, that if we expect to be at all credible as an instrument for the consideration of legislation-and I think we would all subscribe to this wish-we should exercise a bit of self-restraint. Really, 13 days consideration of this bill after 12 days consideration by the parliamentary committee should lead one to anticipate more rapid progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: As a member of this house I rise to say that I do not need a lecture from anybody. I am not happy about what the committee is doing and I do not think I need a lecture on how the business of the house should be carried on. I was elected by my constituents to do my duty as I see it and to speak on the activities of the C.B.C. whenever necessary. I feel I am bound to do this, and I do not appreciate lectures from anybody about what I should, or should not do.


Mr. Priliie:: I would not want the committee to vote on this clause and on the amendment I moved without hearing some comment from the minister. May I summarize the arguments I presented in favour of the amendment last night? The bill provides that the publicly owned network is required to contribute to the development of national unity. I said that although I had some misgivings about the inclusion of these words at all, if they are important they ought surely to be a charge to all broadcasters both public and private. I would point out that private television and radio stations do have the right to editorialize, and I suggest that if such stations come into the hands of people who do not believe in national unity or the maintenance of Canadian confederation they could freely run all the editorials they wished denouncing confederation.
I also mentioned that there are more private radio and television stations in Canada than there are public ones and that if this aspect is important at all it should be incumbent on these people, too, to contribute to the development of national unity. If the minister does not believe that this is important, I should like to know why.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [Translation]


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, on this same
subject, I wonder whether the hon. member's argument cannot be turned so as to mean exactly the opposite. Like him, I have some doubts as to the advisability of including that paragraph in the bill, because its contents seems to me such a matter of course. I also share certain doubts as to the scope of the paragraph and the interpretations that can be made of it.
It is so normal to provide that a public broadcasting system will contribute to Canadian solidarity that the mere fact of mentioning it, of writing it out in full, may lead some people to believe that it is not a matter of promotion but of propaganda, which is, as I can testify, far from the intentions, both of the government, that has drafted the legislation, and of the committee which has considered the matter.
Personally, I would be most favourable to the deletion of this paragraph. It seems superfluous. It seems to me that, by including it, we are giving to certain people cause to think that there is a suggestion of propaganda, which is incorrect.
On the other hand, I would oppose still more the extension of the scope of this paragraph to all stations. I think that if this paragraph is justified somewhere, which I doubt, this justification is stronger where a public body financed with public moneys is involved.
So, I am against the amendment precisely because I question the advisability of the paragraph. The only justification I can find for it-and this is hardly worth saying-is that a Canadian institution cannot be used against the interests of Canada. Since this would be redundant, I believe that it should not be extended any further. Nothing would be gained, save bringing about still more erroneous interpretations.
Therefore, I think we should leave this paragraph where it is, emphasize it as little as possible and consider it as something that is said, even though it is needless to say it. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the true spirit of the wording and would create still more doubt and suspicion as to propaganda. I cannot understand that the hon. member who questions the present paragraph would now extend its scope.


David Lewis: I know the hon. member for Hochelaga shares the doubt which some of us have about whether this wording should be in the bill at all. He said so. I am sure the
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting minister herself was concerned about the abuse which could follow the presence of such wording. However, I would urge the hon. member for Hochelaga and the minister to reconsider their position respecting the amendment, and I do so on two grounds.
[DOT] (12 noon)
If I followed the hon. member for Hochelaga correctly, and I know I did, in effect what he was saying was, "I am doubtful whether it is wise at all to have these words, and if it is unwise let us limit the unwisdom to the public sector only and not spread it further."


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


David Lewis: Yes, that is what he said, and to me it does not appear to be very logical. If it is there at all you do not make it wise by limiting it to the C.B.C.; but if there is value in having it, then there is value in imposing the same moral obligation, which is what these words constitute, on the private sector.
There is another important reason why the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, ought to be considered favourably by members opposite who, I am sure, are as concerned about this problem as those of us who are speaking on it from this side. This is the fact that there is specific wording in subclause (d) to the effect that the broadcasting system as a whole should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy.
I suggest that is an important qualification in that subclause, in order that some management persons in the C.B.C., or in a private station cannot exclude people who may differ with them on the ground that in their opinion something may be said that is against Canadian unity. The clause is badly worded the way it is now.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Hochelaga, whom I have known and admired for many years, where is the moral superiority and logic in saying that anyone who wants to destroy Canada can do so if he has enough money? If he has enough money he can buy up all the prime time on television and radio stations across Canada and carry on his propaganda to destroy the country. That is the implication of this.
In a way we are in the position where we cannot talk against motherhood. If we say take away these words, it may be contended that we are against Canadian unity. If this

moral obligation is to be placed in the law, surely it should be applicable to the entire broadcasting system. There is no reason, on this point, that there should be a difference between public and private broadcasting.
On reading the reports of the broadcasting committee discussions I noticed that the objection to placing this subclause higher up in clause 2 came from some people with private broadcasting experience. They do not want to be burdened with this. They are ready to burden the management of the C.B.C. with this provision, but not the management of private broadcasting companies.
I would like to hear better logic than I heard from the hon. member for Hochelaga to justify that kind of result but, as I say, in addition to that there is the fact that if we accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond it would place the contribution to Canadian unity in the context which specifically permits reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy. The manner of contributing to Canadian unity and building Canadian unity obviously differs in the minds of various people across this country.
There are all sorts of ideas in people's minds as to what in fact contributes to Canadian unity and what in fact does not, and how a stronger Canadian unity can be built in the future. Obviously that kind of public controversy should be permitted. I am certain I do not have to persuade the minister and the hon. member for Hochelaga on that point.
I suggest it is much better to have the reference to this in the clause which specifically recognizes the value and the need for reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy. I do not intend to speak at length because we have spent a long time already on this bill. I have not spoken previously in the committee stage, but I do so now to urge the minister and hon. members opposite to accept an amendment which is reasonable, sensible, and which will carry forward their intention throughout the entire broadcasting system.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the stand taken today by the New Democratic party. I am an independentist. Some will say that I am acting against national unity, that at present, independentists have the right to buy time on private television stations and that the C.B.C. offers us free
January 26, 1968

time on the program pertaining to provincial affairs, but if we are deprived of the democratic means of making our views known, where shall we turn?
Mr. Chairman, I am against the use of violence or bombs to spread ideas, because I believe in democratic methods. Now, the principal democratic method is freedom of speech, and now some want to deprive us of our right to freedom of expression on television.
What means could we then resort to if we are prevented from using the democratic means? Do we prefer that violence be substituted to the freedom of speech? Such approach is completely unthinkable on the part of the New Democratic party.


Mr. Choquette:: It is the democratic party.


Gilles Grégoire: It is the democratic party.
Once adopted in the field of television and broadcasting, we have no assurance that similar legislation will not be passed for newspapers? There you are, democracy is deprived of its true meaning.
Those who like so often to observe what happens in the British parliament in London, their homeland, have probably noticed that independentist or separatist members from Wales and Scotland have the right to sit in that house and that they benefit from the freedom of speech granted to all through mass media. They are allowed to exercise their right of speech. But, today, the ground is being prepared to interfere for the first time with freedom of speech.
Let us take a specific example. In 1942, the Canadian government organized a plebiscite asking the Canadian people whether or not it was in favour of conscription. Now, if the government had said: We are having conscription and those who are against it are against national unity, could we say that Quebec, were 95 per cent of the people voted against conscription, would have been denied the right to express its view over the Canadian radio and television networks because that would have been contrary to Canadian unity and because someone had decreed that it was contrary to Canadian unity?
Mr. Chairman, I ask the members of the New Democratic party to think about that. A while ago, I heard the hon. member for Hoch-elaga (Mr. Pelletier) go over the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
In his amendment, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond mentions Canadian unity.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting The hon. member for Hochelaga did not use the same expression. He said: Canadian solidarity. That is the term he used, and I was struck by it.
I am ready to acknowledge my solidarity with the whole Canadian people, from the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific. But Canadian unity means to be one, to be part of the same group. What is meant by this oneness? Is it oneness of spirit? Does it include unity of religion? Does it include unity of political views? What does it mean?
The hon. member for Hochelaga speaks of solidarity and I am ready to make common cause with everybody.
I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, as well as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), were referring to subclause (g) (iv) where we can read:
contribute to the development of national unity-
To that I would agree.
The New Democratic party has included in its platform the theory of two nations. The Conservative party as well as the Liberal party, through its leader the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), have accepted the theory of two nations: the French-Canadian nation and the English-Canadian nation. Unity within each nation. Canadian unity comes from the unity between each nation. Canadian unity comes from the unity between two nations; it is then an international unity. That is not the same thing.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Then a term has been used here and I wonder if the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond really thought about it when drafting his amendment. But I think that it is badly drafted and that he did not realize all the implications of his amendment.
I heard a while ago the hon. member for York South state that Canadian television should not be prejudicial to Canadian interests. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am firmly and sincerely convinced that when I am advocating unity in Quebec, I am not prejudicial to the interests of Canada. On the contrary, I think that it is in the best interests of Canada that Quebec should be independent. But who is going to decide that? Is it the C.B.C.? Is it the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh)?
Mr. Chairman, one can realize that such an amendment is senseless. I agree that subclause (gXiv) could be deleted, because I feel that it does not mean much.
6020	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
When one refers to national unity, the meaning to me is French-Canadian unity, but there is an English-Canadian unity too. This is the general principle already accepted by
N.D.P., Liberal and Conservative members, in fact by all the members in the house: there are two nations in Canada. Since there are two nations in Canada, we must therefore speak of international unity or unity between the two nations. Nobody can deny that.
Though the subclause is somewhat meaningless, I believe it would be better to take it out altogether, as we cannot leave with the C.B.C. or the hon. Secretary of State the decision of saying what is for the sake of national unity or against it. It would be too large a responsibility for the C.B.C.
I am categorically and squarely opposed to the amendment of the New Democratic party for the reasons I have mentioned and I will say this: If you try to deprive the independ-entists of the democratic means they have, you will force them to resort to other methods.
Today, you can at least say that we are promoting our ideas in a democratic calm and peaceful way without resorting to violence or other similar means. Why? Because we realize that democratic means are more practical and more normal in this 20th century; but if you try to deprive us of those means, you will be the first responsible within this parliament if the independentists resort to more violent means. Why seek this? Think of your amendment, gentlemen, and you will be the first to vote against it. Of that I am sure.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in commenting on the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond I should like to say that I support it wholeheartedly on the ground that if it is good for the publicly owned sector of the television and radio world of Canada to be promoting national unity, it should also be good to have the privately owned sector of the television and radio world supporting the same idea. I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for York South when he points out that one cannot move to delete the phrase, "contribute to the development of national unity", which appears in paragraph (g) of clause 2, without being accused of hatred and wanting to tear the nation apart which is something like opposing motherhood, although I know that many members of the N.D.P. do oppose motherhood by their favouritism toward abortion. No one would think of

DEBATES	January 26, 1968
bringing in an amendment to remove this phrase from paragraph (g) (iv).
It would be interesting to many members of the house, I am certain, to ascertain or learn whether the hon. member for Hoch-elaga, since he does not believe that this part of paragraph (g) should be extended to paragraph (d), is thinking of moving that subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (g) be removed. I do believe that the private sector and the public sector should be on the same footing. I believe the hon. member for York South when speaking expressed wonder concerning why this section appeared only in the publicly owned sector of the act and not in the privately owned sector. I should like to remind members of the house that it is only the C.B.C., the publicly owned section of the radio and television world in Canada, which put von Thadden on a national network. Do you think that that contributed to national unity in this country? It was only the C.B.C. that had Lincoln Rockwell on a program of their section of the radio and television world.
Perhaps the cabinet has come to the conclusion that it should put a rule in here that would help control the nationally owned section of the television and radio world and is a little fearful of extending that same authority to the privately owned sector. But, bear in mind that the privately owned sector up to date has not caused the offence to those who are strongly in favour of national unity that the C.B.C. has caused in the past. The amendment that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has moved is justified completely by the fact that the amendment is based on paragraph (g) (iv). If it is good in paragraph (g) (iv) it will also be good in paragraph (d). I favour wholeheartedly its acceptance by the parliament of Canada.
Of course there are many people in this country who when they start talking about national unity, think of only one narrow phase of the question. I would state that in my opinion the hon. member for Lapointe is a perfect example of those who believe that national unity can spread only one way. I should like to ask what control the cabinet is considering placing on the radio and television world of Canada with regard to discussions based on statements made by Ted Watkins, the celebrated football player for Hamilton who now lives in Burlington. I sympathize with Ted Watkins in the comments he has made. I believe him when he says that there is as much discrimination here.
January 26, 1968

although it may not be as blatant, as there is in the United States. Are steps to be taken to endeavour to bring together in national unity those two races, for one of which Ted Watkins is a very able spokesman and a voluble exponent.
In today's newspapers we read about the police chasing the Indians down around Sept lies for having shot some caribou in the woods in order that they may feed their young. Are we to take steps to see that we extend the hand of national unity to those of the Indian race, or are we to chuck them into jail when they exercise their God given right to take food when they see it in the woods, no matter what time of year. They not only have a God given right to that; they have treaties signed by Queen Victoria which endorse it.
Now, referring to an angle of national unity that people do not seem to pay too much attention to, because national unity does exist in a marvellous way, I wish that the relationship between the Jewish race and the Anglo-Saxon as it is shown in Canada existed throughout all the various sectors of this dominion. I happen to have as a next door neighbour in the Old Mill Towers, which by the way has a community antenna television service which does not require a licence, my good friend Hon. Keiller MacKay, a former member of the Ontario supreme court and former lieutenant governor of Ontario. He made many, many right rulings while he was on the bench, which have proven to be pinnacles in the field of law.
The one ruling for which Hon. Keiller MacKay is given the most credit related to the regulation which stated that no one could sell property if that property was registered in the municipality of East York as not to be sold to Jews. He struck that regulation from the books of Ontario and stated that it was discrimination. It certainly did not contribute to national unity. Now, I say that if this clause-
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep interrupting the hon. member but on a point of order-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt the hon. member but it is obvious that what he is trying to do is filibuster, and he is doing extremely well now.
27053-380J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, no hon. member may impute motives to others.


Gilles Grégoire: You have no right to say that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to point out that it costs some $75,000 per day for parliament to sit, and much of this time has been taken up by the hon. member. No matter what I may think of his contribution, I could have no objection under the rules, provided he obeys the rules and sticks to the subject.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Are you giving me a lecture? How much is the charge?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think in the haunted corridors of his mind something said by some members here trying to get on with the nation's business might somehow find some reflection. We have agreed, and we could not do otherwise because of the rules of the house, that what we are saying must have something to do with the point we are discussing. We are dealing with a very clear amendment and there is no doubt that the hon. member has gone as far afield as he dares. He has not today brought any Spanish kings into the discussion, but I suppose if we do not bring him back to the point he will do that soon.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: He will.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If I cannot do anything else to bring the hon. member to the point, I have taken the precaution of putting in this envelope the sum of $5.48, which is the per capita cost of C.B.C. radio and television for every man, woman and child in Canada. If the hon. member will undertake neither to listen to nor watch C.B.C. radio or television for a year from this date, and to shut up about it, I will be glad to send him this money.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I feel the Secretary of State had no right to make those remarks. Under standing orders, we are allowed to look fully into pieces of legislation brought before the house. On the other hand, if those measures are badly drafted, the Secretary of State is to blame, and then we have the right to discuss the matter.
I readily admit that the Secretary of State is anxious to take her leave in order to work for the forthcoming Liberal convention.
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting However, she has no right to silence the members who wish to speak to this legislation. She has no right to enforce a dictatorship or censorship, and I strongly object to her last remarks. She cannot silence the members, because they have some rights that nobody should attempt to take away from them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Here is your money.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, will you ask for an apology from the hon. member for her imputation of motives.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister is offering me $5.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Oh, not you.


Gilles Grégoire: He was offered $5.48 to keep quiet, but since I represent 70,000 constituents, is the minister ready to pay me 70,000 times $5.48?


An hon. Member:: You have an exaggerated sense of importance, Gilles.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I should point out to the committee that the question we are now discussing is the contribution which the C.B.C. can make to national unity, not national unity itself. I hope that the committee, in order to get its work done, will confine remarks to the question now before it. It seems repetitious for me to say again that when the committee agreed the other day to discuss clause 2, paragraph by paragraph, there was inherent in that agreement the understanding that hon. members would confine their remarks to the paragraph under discussion. I hope all hon. members will do so.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have already asked you whether you are going to ask for an apology-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Have you not something more serious to consider? Is it not a rule as well as the custom of the house that bribery shall not be used in order to influence the attitude or the vote of an hon. member in this house We have had a blatant exhibition of an attempt at bribery today in connection with the hon. member for York-Humber, as proposed by the minister.
IMr. Gregoire.]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And furthermore the amount offered is too high.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It seems that the hon. member for Lapointe wants 70,000 times that much. We know what he is, except his price is higher.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.
I took care to specify that I was asking for 70,000 times $5.48 because I represent 70,000 voters and I will make it my duty to turn it over to them because I am thinking of my voters whereas what the Secretary of State is thinking of is the Liberal convention that will be held soon.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have already asked you for a ruling on the action of a member of this house in imputing motives to another member of the house who is a duly and properly elected member here. I do believe a ruling should be made on that point. I am not filibustering this bill; I am discussing the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sure the hon. member for York-Humber is well aware of the very old rule of this chamber that one member is not permitted to impute motives to another, but I am sure there was no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to do that. Perhaps the hon. member will now proceed with his remarks and confine them to clause 2 (d) and the amendment thereto.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Does the hon. member of Niagara Falls know the rule?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if it is improper to suggest that somebody is filibustering, I would be happy to comply with the rules of the house and withdraw, if you suggest that is the proper thing to do.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
As was indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), under our rules, we are not permitted to offer a bribe to someone to keep him quiet. However, as was witnessed by several members, the hon. Secretary of State offered money to the hon. member for York-Humber, who accepted
January 26, 1968

it. You, Mr. Chairman, have been a witness to this and I say that it is contrary to our rules.
I wonder what means the house will use to prevent such action contrary to the rules of the house? There are so many witnesses that it could not go unnoticed. That is why, as a member, I think it is my duty to charge openly the hon. Secretary of State with having offered a bribe to the hon. member to keep him quiet.
Since the bribe offered by the Secretary of State contained the stated stipulation that the hon. member for York-Humber would not utter another word, should he take part in the debate, we would have to come to the conclusion that he did not comply with the terms of the agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this problem should be settled first.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know that the hon. member for Lapointe has been closely attending this debate and has been in the house almost from the beginning. He must have heard the hon. member for York-Humber complain bitterly to the chamber the other day when someone, I think a member of the N.D.P., suggested he turn off the set or change the channel. He complained bitterly that he could do that, but his taxes still went on. All I have done is offer to return to him from my pocket, openly, the amount of taxes which he is out of pocket now.


Gilles Grégoire: That is still a bribe.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He should no longer be concerned for those of us here trying to do the people's business. Even though he has not been filibustering for 13 days both in and out of the committee, this non-filibustering could not be much more effective in stopping the $75,000 per day business for the people, even if it were in fact that prohibited filibustering.
I suggest that all I have done is try to speed ahead the business of the people. I cannot go back to the people and ask them to refund the $5.48 of his taxes from the $18,000 he gets, some of it for being in the house attending to business. I don't know how much his taxes are, and we all know it is part of the law of the land that I cannot even inquire, but I do not want him to be out of pocket.
It should be remembered that I invited him to take this money with a couple of stipulations, that he neither listen to nor watch C.B.C. for a year.


An hon. Member:: Or talk about it.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We will have to have some sort of policing, I suppose, since he has accepted that invitation and my generous return to him of this portion of his tax money. I know he will be happy to sit here. I do not care how he votes. No one in the country cares how he votes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The people of York-Humber do.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let him do what he wants in voting but let us get on with the business of the country.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think it would serve the interests of the committee better if we were to get along with the business before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Taking my cue from your nonaction, Mr. Chairman, with regard to a ruling on the imputation of motives and the question of bribery, I am offering a quarter to the Secretary of State for her to shut up, because that is all the contribution she has made to the debate is worth. To get around the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-


Mr. Knowles:: How those Liberals love each other.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -I support it 100 per cent and I sincerely hope it will be carried by an overwhelming majority. If we should do what we can to develop national unity as set out in subclause (g) (iv), it should be set out for the private sector as well in subclause (d). Having said that, the Secretary of State is welcome, if she wishes, to come and get $5.48, if that is what is in this blank envelope, as I have not kept quiet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before taking the vote, I should like to quote standing order 79 which reads as follows:
The offer of any money or other advantage to any member of this House, for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the constitution.
Mr. Chairman, you have just witnessed a "high crime and misdemeanor". Is the house going to do something about it?
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
There is talk of subversion of the constitution. I think that the chairman of the committee of the whole of the House of Commons, who has been a witness to this crime should step in.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am awaiting your ruling on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Harold Edward Winch: Don't carry on this stupid debate. Let us have the question.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Chairman, I hate to change the subject but I want to make some remarks about the amendment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: You are not changing the subject. I was talking about the amendment.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am very sympathetic with the point of view put forward by the broadcasting critic for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Royal, or the man I understood to be the broadcasting critic for that party. Therefore I am reluctant to make any contribution to this debate. However, I feel that the hon. member for York South has made a remarkable suggestion in saying that the hon. member for Hochelaga showed some lack of logic in his remarks.
In spite of all the respect that I hold for the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and for the contribution he has made to the formulation of this bill, I must say that I find no more logic in the suggestion that although a reference to national unity in this clause is entirely uncalled for and undesirable it should be extended to the whole broadcasting system.
I should like to state the situation as I see it, very briefly. Parliament should not in a statute direct a news medium, either broadcasting or print, as to its editorial opinions. I should think the same criticism might be directed to the amendment before us as was directed yesterday to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. In another way this might be considered a restriction on freedom. In fact, we in parliament would be directing the broadcasters of Canada to take a certain editorial line.
I do not think that would be the intention of the New Democratic party but it seems to me that would be the effect of this amendment. I suggest that the hon. member for
IMr. Gregoire.]
Lapointe is quite correct in suggesting that his point of view, as repugnant as it is to all the rest of us in this house, is one that should be heard in Canada over the broadcasting media.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I suggest that the words in subclause (d) referring to the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy should be read again by the proposers of this amendment. It is certainly in the interest of Canadian unity that all points of view be expressed and that the general direction to the regulatory authority, which after all is what subclause (d) is, should make provision for that wide expression of conflicting points of view.
In my estimation, non-government media should not be directed in the kind of editorial policy they should pursue. On the other hand, parliament many years ago established a vehicle for the expression of public policy in broadcasting. That vehicle is our public corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One of the very reasons for its existence is the development and nurturing of national unity.
While we in this parliament do not want to direct the editorial opinions of the owners of other news media we have the right, on behalf of the owners of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to decide a basic factor of that corporation's policy. That is why in the mandate of the national broadcasting service we give it some direction in subclause (g). We give it the direction that we feel is appropriate on behalf of the people of Canada, the owners of that corporation, for the corporation to follow as, in the words of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened. I appreciate the motivation behind this amendment but it seems to me not only undesirable but contrary to the principles of free expression and the basic purpose, the very raison d'etre, of our public broadcasting service.


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


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, listening to the arguments back and forth with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I must admit that I have become more and more disturbed at the language we are attempting to insert in this subclause and the language
January 26, 1968	COMMONS
which is found a little farther on in the bill regarding the definition of the Canadian broadcasting system. I find it difficult as well to accept as being reasonable or sound the logic that advanced by the hon. member for Hochelaga and in the remarks of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
It does seem to me that we are faced with the problem of deciding, not just for one segment of the broadcasting industry but for the industry as a whole, whether or not we shall give it certain direction in terms of the programming limits which should be applied to the industry. I suppose every time a new act is drafted, particularly in an area of such vital concern as broadcasting, we are always caught up with the great fixation of the moment, and I suppose that explains in very large measure why it has been found necessary by the government to include that phrase "national unity" in this bill.
National unity in the year 1968 is a great golden touchstone. Everyone wants to be in favour of national unity simply because we have become profoundly disturbed about the future of this country and about the viability of something as important to our country as national unity. We are attempting to decide whether and how we shall apply this gentle directive to the broadcasting industry, whether it shall apply, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough suggests, just to the area of the public broadcasting system or whether, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond suggests, it should apply to the whole of the broadcasting industry.
I wonder whether the government has given sufficient thought to the insertion of this phrase in the bill because it seems to me that we have treasured in this country over the past 30 years the establishment of something that was very unique and important-a public broadcasting system, not a state broadcasting system. When we begin to move into areas such as those covered by the amendments proposed yesterday in the matter of national unity, we are in effect moving away from the concept of public broadcasting toward the idea of state broadcasting whereby the broadcasting system of the country becomes an extension of the state.
I feel this is not only a very dangerous direction for our country to take but also a very bad one for the broadcasting industry. While it may seem to members of the house at this time that there is nothing more important to any individual in this country than
DEBATES	6025
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting national unity, let me suggest in all humility that I think there is. I think that the individuals who make up a society are always more important. It may well be that there will be more important things in the future, even to Canadians, than national unity and that international understanding and the kind of relationships that will undoubtedly have to be established will have priority over national unity.
However, speaking more specifically on the amendment and on what is included in the bill, I think there is an even more insidious problem than the one I have mentioned. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond suggests the insertion of the words "and contribute to Canadian unity". I think we are reasonably certain of what we mean by Canadian unity, but the phrase contained in paragraph (g) (iv) uses the words "to the development of national unity". There is a subtle difference between the phrase "Canadian unity" and the phrase "national unity". Anyone who has studied the various epithets which have been thrown back and forth about the word "nation" and the so-called "two nations" or "deux nations" concept which has resulted in differences in interpretation, will realize that there is a hidden danger in the phrase "national unity" used in the bill. There is a possibility that it might be interpreted to mean the very opposite of what we are trying to achieve. It could mean the development of more than one national unity such as an English national unity and a French national unity or even various other forms of national unity such as a native Indian national unity. I do not think that is what is meant by the drafters of the bill, but certainly this rather general phrase is open to various interpretations.
If there is one other quality contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond it is the fact that he is very specific. He is not just using the term "national unity" but rather speaks about Canadian unity which encompasses the whole host of different ethnic, racial or linguistic groups that make up this country. In argument against the suggestion of the hon. member for Hochelaga who advanced the opinion that neither phrase is very good but at least "national unity" is better than "Canadian unity" I would make this point. If, for the sake of expediency, we have to include some reference to unity in the legislation it seems to me more reasonable that we should refer to
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Canadian unity and steer clear of any ambiguity or difficulty of understanding which may arise with a term such as "national unity" which I think may open up the danger of some misunderstanding in future interpretations of this bill.
Frankly, I am not at all happy with the fact that we have to be preoccupied with what I think are the expediencies of the moment, but since we are faced with the bogey of division and separatism in our country today I suppose we have to nod in that direction. But 1 think we must be very careful not to direct the energies which have been used in this country through the years to establish an independent and public broadcasting system to the extent of making the broadcasting system of this country simply an extension or an arm of the state or of the government.


Robert William Prittie: I agree with almost everything the hon. member for Prince said. He has shown the futility of using this type of phraseology in the legislation. I will only say to the minister that if she will indicate that the reference to national unity will be withdrawn from subclause (g) (iv) I will be willing to ask the committee for permission to withdraw the amendment to subclause 2 (d).


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make, having consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), who has his L.L.D. and with whom I went to university, although he had the honour of completing his education before I did.
I should like to point out that the wording used in this paragraph (d) of clause 2 is of great concern to me, for if I remember rightly-I do not know whether the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) remembers, for he was not as studious as we were-we were taught-


Gilles Grégoire: I may not have taken as much time as the hon. member for Lotbiniere to get through with my four years as a law student. Perhaps it is on that account-


Auguste Choquette: Agreed, Mr. Chairman, but I was serious enough about my studies that I was admitted to the Quebec bar.


Gilles Grégoire: It is because in the province of Quebec, there is a saying that "law leads to everything so long as one gets out of it."


An hon. Member:: Before getting out of it, one must have got into it all the same.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Auguste Choquette: We agree on maintaining the C.B.C.; we want one corporation from sea to sea.
I wish to repeat what I said, Mr. Chairman. The only way to create this Canadian solidarity-call it national unity, binational or Canadian interpendence, it does not matter- for Canadians to agree, to have an atmosphere of sympathy among us, an atmosphere of solidarity so that French sounds become familiar to all Canadians just as English sounds are familiar to all Quebeckers.
In certain areas of the country you can simply ask people "What time is it?"-(Quelle heure est-il)-and for those people it might as well be Chinese or Japanese. In fact I am sure that if you ask the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):	"On what
street am I?" he will be aghast because French sounds for him are just as foreign as Arab sounds.
And that is the trouble with Canadians if I may say so, Mr. Chairman. It is essential that the French language should penetrate everywhere in Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I recognize the import of the remarks the hon. member is making but I think he is going a little far afield. The question before the committee is the amendment to 2 (d).


Auguste Choquette: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say this: If we really want to establish programming on the basis of national unity or Canadian solidarity, the C.B.C. must open stations which will make it possible for the French language to be broadcast everywhere in Canada. Only then, shall we really reach our objective, for I am convinced that the hon. member for York-Humber belongs to a very small minority and, furthermore, that the French fact is considered as a Canadian asset. In fact, the new generation of English-speaking Canadians seem proud of the fact that the best way to distinguish ourselves from the American people is to promote and extend the French language in Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a simple question to the mover of this amendment.
When the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond wants to insert:
-should contribute to the Canadian solidarity-
-does he mean that any supporter of the Quebec independent movement or any
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting thought regarding that movement should be banned in the broadcasting by C.B.C. and the private stations?


Robert William Prittie: I would not want to leave to the hon. member entirely the definition of Canadian unity. The hon. member for York South and I have suggested that if the principle which is being talked of is to be in the bill it should be included in 2 (d) because that subclause provides that broadcasters should afford reasonable opportunity for those who wish to express conflicting views on matters of public controversy. The hon. member obviously espouses views which conflict with the views of others on matters of public controversy; the same is true for Premier Johnson and Rend Levesque. Those types of programs should be aired, and broadcasters are charged to do precisely that.


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


Gilles Grégoire: In view of the reply of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I should like to point out that if it is the responsibility of the public broadcasting system to contribute to national unity, to Canadian unity, private stations should also do their part. Thus, it would mean that broadcasting on both the public and the private network would be forbidden to those who do not contribute to Canadian unity, as the independentists.
In another paragraph apparently the broadcasting of matters of public controversy, is allowed. Besides, if "public controversy" is an indefinite expression, it is different with the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond who wants to ban broadcasting of specific matters, namely matters which would not contribute to Canadian unity or which would go against what is called Canadian unity.
The term "public controversy" is very broad but the amendment tends to exclude a specific point from the general terminology used. In doing that, a very specific point is excluded from the field of general controversy, that is everything that would not contribute to Canadian unity. That is what is implied by saying that programming should contribute to Canadian unity. Now, when independentists speaking on the C.B.C. or on private networks promote Quebec independence instead of Canadian unity it is claimed that
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting this is indulging in "public controversy". From that moment on, this goes against the amendment of the hon. member who should realize the situation.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, since clause 3 deals with definitions, perhaps the drafters of the bill might redraft that clause to include a definition of Canadian unity. That might clear up the hon. member's argument.


Mr. Rapp:: One o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Since it is one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock it was considering clause 2 (d) and the amendment thereto.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that at this point there is only one thing to do if the Secretary of State wants the discussion to close as rapidly as possible. There is talk of national unity and Canadian unity. It seems to me that we could now considerably accelerate the business of the house if the Secretary of State would give us a definition of what national unity is. As soon as we have this definition, it may be possible to vote and end the discussion. Otherwise, we will be discussing for another week without knowing what is national unity, what is Canadian unity.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, the only way to go ahead is for the hon. Secretary of State to give us the official definition of what she means by the words national unity. So I ask her to give us this definition right away.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have been moved to speak in this debate by some of the remarks made this morning about national unity, the impossibility of defining it and the danger of leaving in the bill the suggestion that our entire broadcasting system should contribute to Canadian unity. I was particularly struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Prince who with his brilliant advocacy suggested semantic paralysis as the sole


course of inaction possible for this institution at this time.
Language functions; communication is still possible. It functions because the majority of the people speaking a language, any language, basically understand what is meant by the words they use. While one can take a scholarly approach and argue fine points of linguistics or semantics, the world and the nation go on in spite of the intricacies of debate.
This institution depends on words, Mr. Chairman. If we lose our nerve in this matter we might as well go home. There is no bill that comes before us that could not be given the same kind of scholastic scrutiny which in the end result would paralyse us through our modern knowledge of language so that we could take no action. Fortunately, we do not use that approach to the large majority of the bills that come before us. But we do use it when we reach questions of value and abstract problems, and it then becomes too easy to lose our nerve.
I know that the hon. member for Prince is well aware of the companion developments that have gone on in a field he knows so well, morality. We are presented today with a new morality that again leads to paralysis. We no longer refer to ethics but to situational ethics, and again there are no values or guidelines or any firm ground on which to base important decisions in this field.
It is important, sir, to point out that national unity is being defined for us and it is being defined by the hon. member for Lapointe. Now that he has left the party with which he was formerly affiliated and has taken his position as an independent in this house he can no longer be as subtle as he could before. If this measure meets with the fervent opposition of the hon. member for Lapointe then we know that it does promote national unity. He tells us repeatedly that it is his task and function to destroy national unity in this country. Therefore he cannot be subtle now; he must see the danger to his position when it arises and react as he has been reacting today.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond is right in his suggestion that his amendment to clause 2 (d) be accepted. The reputation of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond does not permit him to be devious in approaches to problems. He is the last member in this house I would want to accuse of being Machiavellian in his approach to any subject. However, I will admit that his approach in moving his
January 26, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask once again the Secretary of State if she will be giving us the definition of "national unity"
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that we find in this bill? Is the Secretary of State in a position to give us this definition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This is the kind of thing which I think each of us knows, though we may not know the words for it. I suppose that without being too facetious I might say that the hon. member, who has declared his own feelings about Canadian unity many times and has proclaimed his own position, should carefully enunciate what he stands for-and national unity is the direct opposite.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make another remark.
The hon. Secretary of State just said to me: This is the kind of thing for the definition of which I cannot find words, which means that the expression may mean something to a person and something else to another. If even the hon. Secretary of State, who sponsors this bill, cannot find a definition for it, this means that in the mind of the C.B.C.'s leaders or producers, there may be a definition altogether different from that in the mind of the hon. Secretary of State or of the hon. members. Indeed, should everybody be asked to give a definition of national unity, we would probably come out with twenty or so different definitions. That is why I am asking that, before we come to a vote on something, someone tells us who will be assigned the task to give a definition, for even the hon. Secretary of State cannot do it. In fact I think that is something extraordinary. While the hon. Secretary of State is unable to define the expression, she says: It means something, but I would not know what, I cannot find appropriate words for it. She cannot find words but she says: It is the opposite of what you are thinking.
Mr. Chairman, where is all this leading us? If even the sponsor of this bill is unable to give us a definition of an expression, what does that mean? Something will have to be done about it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Prittie) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 37.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I appreciate the indulgence which the committee has shown me in the current debate on this clause. There are one or two further thoughts I should like to express in this area of discussion.
6030	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
As I suggested more than a month ago I have an amendment I should like to move at this stage of our debate on this subclause; I shall come to it in a moment or two. Before apprising the committee of the substance of my amendment I should like to say, first of all, that I opposed the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond because I do not believe that the admonition to attend to the responsibilities of preserving and safeguarding Canadian unity should be imposed on private entrepreneurs, people who are engaged in private undertakings supported by private risk capital. These strictures should be no more imposed on them than any other strictures or admonitions of any kind.
I believe the position taken by the chairmen of the broadcasting committee, the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and the hon. member for Hochelaga, is the correct one. No hon. member could in conscience argue that the charge to contribute to national unity should not be a responsibility of the national broadcasting service, nor could he in conscience argue that direction of this kind should be given to private operators in this or any other field. The point of difference has been articulated by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. The point is that the national service is owned by all of us and as such has a responsibility to serve the national good.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If a private operator is militating against the national good, adding to the misfortunes of the country and its economy, our society and economy by themselves will take care of that problem. This has been demonstrated throughout our history. But in the case of a national public service the philosophic approach must be different. The national good is all-important and must be safeguarded. This is the reason I voted against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
I would be willing to dispense with my own amendment to subclause (d) if the committee in its wisdom should decide that the entire subclause be stricken from the bill. If this happens I will move my amendment as an amendment to subclause (g). My amendment reads that in subclause (d) of clause 2 the words "should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy," in lines 3, 4 and 5 be deleted and the following words be substituted therefor: "should be balanced 
DEBATES	January 26, 1968
in its treatment of matter of public concern." If adopted subclause (d) would then read:
(d) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should be balanced in its treatment of matters of public concern, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources.
I intend to move this amendment at the end of my remarks but, as I say, I will be happy to withdraw it and move it as an amendment to subclause (g) should the minister and the committee decide that the legislation would be better if subclause (d) were struck from the bill.
I have stated my reasons for my concern about the balanced treatment of matters of public concern on two or three previous occasions this week and on two or three prior occasions, so I do not intend to subject the committee to further dissertation on those reasons. It was only within the past three or four days that I reached the conclusion that I should use the phrase "public concern" in my proposed amendment rather than "public controversy." After hearing the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre and by other hon. members I came to the conclusion that the term "public concern" would serve the purpose of my intent and my philosophy far better than the term "public controversy."
At this point I wish to refer again to something which was said most eloquently by my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Prince. I am afraid he may come to the conclusion that I have an axe to grind with him, but this is not so. He and I are good friends and I hope will become better friends as our service in this chamber continues. However, I would like to discuss one or two points which he made on the subject of national purpose and unity and the fear and danger of stateism and state control of broadcasting.
The hon. member said, and I think he is right, that there may be some things more important to Canadians than national unity and that in the future we may have international connections and obligations which will outweigh purely national considerations. This is a valid prognosis of the direction in which many countries, including Canada, are moving. If this is the philosophy to which the hon. member subscribes, then I wish to ask him what he feels about the argument that the C.B.C. provides a valuable cultural and
January 28, 1968

philosophical defence of our sovereignty on this continent. Many people outside this chamber have argued with me that the C.B.C. has a valuable role to perform as a platform for anti-American views. Because of our geographical position we are subjected to a steady flow of overt and covert American influence and propaganda. These people say the only defence we have to this is the C.B.C. and therefore it is justified in any quasiofficial, anti-American view that it propounds.
I have always felt this to be a sterile reason for the existence of a national broadcasting service. The existence of an institution cannot be defended simply on the ground that it is opposing something. This is a barren, uninspiring and destructive philosophy. If this philosophy is given due consideration, where does the validity of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Prince come in concerning things more important to Canadians than national unity? His argument and the argument of those who feel that our national unity and sovereignty are at stake do not square with me. You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Either Canadian national unity is important to Canadians or it is not. If it is not we do not need people to argue in favour of a C.B.C. approach which in public affairs shows has impressed some people for some considerable time as being anti-American.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I would also question my hon. friend's approach to the necessity for the use of the term and to the meaning of the term "national unity" as it appears in this clause of the bill. He has argued compellingly that the use of this term in this bill perhaps lends emphasis to a kind of bureaucratic state or big brother approach to our national affairs which would inhibit our basic freedom and be altogether undesirable so far as the development of the Canadian national personality is concerned. I think this is a valid argument to raise on one level of our national discussion. However, I do not believe it applies legitimately to this part of the legislation because I would point out to my hon. friend that this term is used in subclause (g) of the proposed legislation, which starts out by dealing with the national broadcasting service.
The hon. member suggested that paragraph (iv) of subclause (g), for example, which refers to national unit, is open to all kinds of interpretations because we could be talking about unity of the French nation or unity of
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the Indian nation. In the context of the wording of the legislation I suggest that that is not a valid point. We are talking about the national broadcasting service. We are not talking about the broadcasting service of the French nation or the Indian nation. It is obvious to anyone confronted with wording of this type that what we are talking about is the broadcasting service of the Canadian nation. So when we go on from talking about a national broadcasting service to the question of national unity, surely it follows that we are talking about the unity of the Canadian nation as a whole from coast to coast. Therefore it is on these grounds that I challenge the remarks of the hon. member for Prince in respect of this terminology.
I have one other point. I know that a good many members of this committee, and certainly the minister, are concerned about the lack of speed with which this legislation is being processed at this stage. I submit, however, that appeals to urgency and speed at this stage of our procedure are unacceptable to a great many of us in this chamber and to a great many Canadians at large. We have just returned from a month's recess. I do not think many of us were taking a holiday. We are all aware of the political work which must be done at home and in other parts of the country during a recess. But we were on recess and were not in this chamber. Now that we are in the chamber dealing with one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before us there is no reason that we should not scrutinize every word and every phrase for as long as we wish until we are entirely satisfied that this legislation is right.
The hon. lady suggested that parliament is costing the Canadian taxpayers $70,000 a day. I suggest to the hon. lady that the C.B.C. costs the Canadian taxpayers far more than that. The C.B.C. costs the Canadian taxpayers $143 million a year. The Canadian taxpayers are paying the $70,000 a day for parliament whether we are talking about broadcasting or about something else. In fact they were paying it when we were on recess last month.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not in fairness to the hon. lady admit that she was asking simply that we stay on the point and discuss broadcasting?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I admire the manner in which the hon. lady has taken the initiative
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in framing this legislation and in piloting it thus far through the committee and the house. Therefore I concede the point in favour of the hon. lady.
My point, however, is that parliament has been charged with rushing through too much legislation. We have seen a perfect example in recent days in respect of the divorce bill. We have seen an example of how mistakes, errors, oversights and omissions can occur when we are asked to push through legislation of a far reaching nature in too brief a period of time. I know that in comparison with some other debates the broadcasting debate has been a lengthy one. But I am speaking in relative terms. Divorce, broadcasting philosophy, capital punishment, the unification of the armed forces and far reaching social issues of this kind demand close scrutiny and lengthy examination. A member of the other place recently found a glaring omission or oversight in the wording of the divorce legislation which to my knowledge was missed by all of us in this chamber.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Not at all.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Perhaps I stand corrected on that, but in any event it was not pointed out with such vigour that it was accepted in this chamber.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It was pointed out by three members.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: But it was not pointed out with sufficient acceptability and vigour to make any difference in the final result of the legislation as adopted in this house. Now it has been pointed out by a member of the other place that an oversight, omission and weakness in the legislation exists, and so far as the Canadian public is concerned I dare suggest the view is that the other place has picked up a mistake made or an omission committed by the members of this chamber. I hope that in respect of legislation as important as this broadcasting legislation we will make no mistakes, will leave no stones unturned and will ensure that there are no omissions so that one year from now, two years from now or in the unlimited future we will know that we have a broadcasting system in this country which can stand the test of controversial criticism and such verbal explosions as have occurred from time to time in the last few years in so far as the national broadcasting service and parliament are concerned.

So I rise in defence of close, searching scrutiny of this legislation. I appeal to the hon. lady and to all hon. members to resist the temptation to deal with this matter with too much urgency and haste. We should make every effort to ensure that we come out of this debate with a viable piece of legislation that will be acceptable, rational and responsible and which does not contain glaring oversights and omissions.
These are the remarks which I wished to make at this stage, Mr. Chairman, in respect of this subclause. I am advised by a colleague in this chamber that a different amendment to this clause is contemplated and anticipated. In deference to the request of my colleague I will withhold formal movement of my amendment at this point. I have read it to the committee and perhaps in recent days have been outspoken in defence of the theory and philosophy contained therein.
9 (3:10 p.m.)
Members of the committee know that what I am asking for is balanced treatment on matters of public concern so that all points of view are expressed and no one point of view is given expression and a platform to the detriment of any other. I have no way of knowing whether the amendment to be proposed by my colleague is going to call for the complete elimination of subclause (d), but in that case I would be in favour of that procedure. At a later stage of the debate when we reach consideration of subclause (g) I would then submit my formal amendment in relation to the balanced treatment of affairs of national and public concern.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, for deferring his amendment in respect of clause 2, subclause (d). In view of the fact that certain thoughts I expressed yesterday were misinterpreted I should like tc move an amendment to this part of the bill. I hope to allay the concern of some members on this side of the house and perhaps on the other side by removing the word "controversy" and substituting the word "concern". I think enough speeches have been made to indicate the different points of view held by hon. members. The minister has admitted that it is very difficult to draft legislation of this type. Without saying anything more I should

January 26, 1968

like to present formally my amendment to clause 2 (d). I move that:
Clause 2(d) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide a reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources."
I have copies of this amendment in English. Having listened to the debate during the last two days it is my hope that the amendment will find favour among hon. members as an attempt to strike a balance and, hopefully, to meet the problem which concerns my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Perhaps his concern will again be expressed when we reach consideration of subclause (g) which relates to the national broadcasting service, the C.B.C.
My amendment provides in a general way some framework within which the council may interpret broadcasting policy. The hon. member for Lotbiniere raised an interesting point this morning regarding the word "should" rather than "shall" or "may". I gather that the word "should" has been used because clause 2 does not direct that certain things be done but rather provides a term of reference to be followed by the new board or council.


Auguste Choquette: It would be in the preamble.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It would have the effect of a preamble. Without getting into an argument on semantics or the legalistic interpretation of the words "may", "shall", or "should", I hope this amendment in respect of the word "controversy" and a reasonable opportunity for the expression of differing views will find a favourable consensus in this committee.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared on behalf of the government to accept this phraseology if it is satisfactory to the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear. You are learning.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If you stayed out of the house I would learn faster.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the mover or the minister could explain the difference, because it is not apparent to me.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think it is intended that the amendment should read "and should provide reasonable, balanced opportunity", not "a reasonable, balanced opportunity".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could we have a copy of the amendment?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Does the mover agree that the word "a" be removed from the amendment submitted to the committee?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is agreed, yes. In answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, who has had a very real interest in this legislation, I should like to point out that this amendment attempts to provide a balancing effect in respect of the direction of programming. The word in the amendment is "balanced", but there is also a substitution of the word "concern" for "controversy". The phraseology is different. The amendment attempts to balance any direction from this parliament in relation to programming of the broadcasting system. I think the word "balanced" helps to do this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would give us a moment to look at this amendment. I do not think there is any great quarrel with the purpose the hon. member has in mind, but perhaps the minister should discuss it with her drafting officer. It says "and should provide a reasonable, balanced opportunity"-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The word "a" has been dropped.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It should read "provide a reasonable and balanced opportunity", or, "provide a reasonably balanced opportunity". It looks like sloppy draftsmanship.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have shown it to the law officers.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I must say that the initial draft presented to the minister conformed a little more to his suggestion. However, she has just stated that her law officers, for one reason or another, suggest this form. I must admit that I thought "a reasonable, balanced opportunity" was better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have stood pat.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before taking the vote, could you read the amendment in French?
January 26. 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I regret, but I do not have the French copy.


Gilles Grégoire: I have the English copy but I wonder whether I understand it well. Could you not read the amendment in French? I think it would be in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I must say in respect of the point of order just raised that it involves an unreasonable request. We have a very effective simultaneous translation system. An amendment may be read in French and I receive it translated into English. If the hon. member for Lapointe would act the way other people in this house do he would receive the translation of the English in French.
e (3:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says that the simultaneous translation is the official translation.
We may wonder whether it is accurate enough. That is the reason why I ask the chairman whether he could not read us the official translation of the amendment.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I can
translate the amendment but it would not be the official translation. If the hon. member wants to wait, we will have it translated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is an unnecessary
delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a more pleasant delay than some we have had.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you referring to those caused by the New Democratic party?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Would the committee agree that we go to the next subclause and have this amendment officially translated and read a little later?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a rather ridiculous request. We have had exhortations from the minister to get on with the business. If this is established as a precedent Your Honour will be kept much longer in the chair than you are now, to your great disadvantage. The hon. member for Lapointe

is fluent in both languages and understands perfectly well what is involved in the amendment. We should let it go at that.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I shall point out to the hon. member of Winnipeg South Centre that I have never abused of that kind of request. I even think that it is the first time that I made such a request in five years. The reason for my doing so is that I am not sure as to the meaning of one or two words in that amendment. If I ask for its translation, it is because I have a serious reason and not only to hamper the debate.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Actually the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre are right. However, standing order 43 provides as follows:
All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the Chair. When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, although I do not know too much about the rule I think it refers to a motion. This is an amendment and it needs no seconder.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I think it is an accepted rule of the house that motions or amendments should be submitted in both languages. That is the ruling I am making, although I do not have the actual authority that covers it. But even if it derives from nothing but precedent, that is what has been accepted by the house.


Mr. Leboe:: I do not think there is such a rule, Mr. Chairman. I think it has been a practice of the house but it is not a rule.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, it is standing order 43.


Bert Raymond Leboe: What does standing order 43 say?


An hon. Member:: That it shall be in English and in French.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the suggestion of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings before we have the translation. I wonder whether there is not some redundancy in having the words "reasonable" and "balanced" together. I wonder whether the amendment would not read a little more effectively if the
January 26, 1968

wording were "reasonable opportunity" rather than "reasonable, balanced opportunity." It seems to me that we are saying the same thing twice and thus making the amendment rather meaningless. I wonder whether the mover of the amendment would be willing to strike out the word "balanced" and thus make his amendment a little more clearcut.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: If that proposal is acceptable, Mr. Chairman, it will alter the wording of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. In that case I would put forward my own amendment which asks specifically for balanced treatment for matters of public concern.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, with all deference to my friend, the hon. member for Prince, I must say that both words together may leave something to be desired, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and there may be no difference between what is balanced and what is reasonable. However, I think the two words "balanced" and "reasonable" cover both sides of the street.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one of the Conservative members to tell us what is meant by the word "balanced"? Does it mean the same amount of words on both sides or the same amount of time on both sides? Or what does it mean?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is Conservative view as opposed to an N.D.P. view. Then you get balance.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, while you are pondering your decision or simply waiting for the official translation into French I should like to pose a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Judging by his last remarks the hon. member appears to find inadequate the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Apparently the hon. member feels that stating that there shall be balanced opportunity for the expression of conflicting views does not suffice and that there must be in effect a clear statement that there shall be balanced treatment. I simply put to him this question: If there is balanced opportunity, does not that logically translate into "balanced treatment"? Does the hon. member not feel that he is perhaps quibbling a bit?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman I think the hon. member for Springfield is imputing an interpretation or a philosophical stance to me
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that is incorrect. I am satisfied with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I in part make a concession, as the minister is making a concession and as various other members of the committee are making a concession, in order to achieve a consensus and a degree of unanimity on this subclause so that we may move along with the legislation. Had this amendment not been proposed, or had the minister said it was not acceptable to her, I would have held out for my amendment which is, I concede, perhaps stronger in a certain semantic sense than the one advanced by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. In my view the objective of the achievement of balance in the treatment of matters of public concern is important. The term "balanced" is important, and I am satisfied to make a concession in the area of rigid language and accept a slightly more general or looser form of wording provided that the term itself is contained in the clause.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is the reason I accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and the hon. member for Springfield is incorrect in assuming that the amendment is not satisfactory to me.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, is the table preparing an amendment or is someone else preparing an amendment? What are we waiting for?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: What is being prepared right now is the official French translation of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having prepared the amendment in both languages. What led to my omission is that we have actually been using both languages here, that is with the help of the simultaneous interpretation, in discussing this clause for almost two days. There is not a word used in the amendment which I have proposed that has not been discussed, defined, dissected and debated in this chamber for the last two or three days. I apologize for the delay which results from the request of the hon. member for Lapointe. I was somewhat surprised by the request because in advancing this amendment I was only trying to expedite the proceedings by attempting to correlate the different viewpoints which have been expressed on this contentious subclause. If other words had been used, as suggested by the hon. member
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting for Burnaby-Richmond, the situation would have been different. One wonders where the difference lies. The difference is only a subtle one of tone. I believe it is a difference in emphasis. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South suggested, the emphasis is on a reasonable opportunity being given for a balanced treatment, and different views exist on matters of public concern. Under my amendment there would still be opportunity to express different views, even if they did not meet the general consensus. This is why I proposed my amendment. In the future I will certainly attempt to present amendments in the two official languages, but in this case I do not know whether I could have found an official translator to do this for me during the noon hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the apology just made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, may I point out to him that the rule does not require a member to submit an amendment in both languages. The rule merely requires that if requested the Chair must read it to the house or to the committee of the whole in both languages. It is a matter of courtesy for those who submit amendments to submit them in both languages, but it is not required. The requirement is on the Chair.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: How can
the Chair do this without having the original text? The ruling applicable is contained in standing order 43 when the Speaker is in the chair and, according to standing order 59, the same ruling applies when the house is in committee. It is certainly proper to submit an amendment in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it costs a great deal of money each day for parliament to function, could we not stand this subclause and go to another clause until the French translation is obtained?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: As a matter of fact this was the suggestion made by the Chair, that we stand this subclause until we receive the official translation and that we go on to the next clause. However, there was not unanimous consent to the suggestion.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order with respect to the ruling because I think it might create a serious precedent. The precedent which will apparently be created is

that no member of the house, whether English or French speaking, will be permitted to move an amendment in committee unless he submits it in writing in both languages. In my opinion this is contrary to the rules, practices and precedents of the house. It has been a matter of courtesy for members to prepare four or five copies of any amendment they intend to propose, one for each party. But there is no requirement that this be done. It is merely required that the amendment be handed to the chairman in writing in either official language, not in both languages. The reason I am apprehensive about this ruling is that if it is allowed to stand, hon. members who are not capable of preparing an amendment in both languages will be prevented from having it accepted by the Chair or presented to the committee.
No member of the committee has the right to demand that an amendment be presented to him in writing in one particular language. All he has the right to demand is that the amendment be read by the Chair, and when it is read by the Chair it is translated simultaneously into the other language. I have no objection to, and I think it is a good practice for, hon. members to present their amendments in writing in both languages for the sake of convenience. However, we now find ourselves in a situation where apparently a precedent is to be set that unless an amendment is presented to the chairman in writing in both languages it will not be accepted or presented to the committee. This will set a precedent for future procedure on amendments.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with the last speaker but I would point out one thing to Your Honour, namely that the official language in Canada is either English or French. When a member makes a speech in the house we do not have to wait for an official translation because we have simultaneous interpretation. The same situation applies to any amendments that are moved or any statements from the Chair. It has been the practice for a number of years now to ask questions in the house either in English or in French, and no one jumps up and asks for the speaker to put the question in the other official language. May I conclude by saying that there are two official languages in the house. If one language is used, whether in writing or in speech, surely that is enough.
January 26, 1968

[DOT]	(3:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order and before you make your ruling, I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken, that it is not a matter of whether the speech of an hon. member should be officially translated a second time since there is no provision in our standing orders to that effect. It is not either, as was suggested by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), to oblige an hon. member to move a motion in both languages. Again, there is nothing on that matter in our standing orders.
However, standing order No. 43 states and I quote:
All motions shall be in writing and seconded, before being debated or put from the Chair.
It does not say in both languages. I continue:
When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by Mr. Speaker if he be familiar with both languages; if not, Mr. Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the Clerk at the Table to read it in the other, before debate.
It is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. The reason for that reference is the fact that when someone speaks, we are provided with simultaneous interpretation. But a motion is much more important than a speech. One may have a general idea of a speech without necessarily having a precise understanding of every word and every term. However, when the question is put on a motion or on an amendment, then, every word, every term has a definite and strict significance. That is why our standing orders state that:
When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French.
It might be argued that the Speaker is in the chair. Then, as you have so clearly shown, Mr. Chairman, standing order No. 59 will apply, and I quote:
The standing orders of the house shall be observed in the committees of the whole house-
We are indeed in the committee of the whole.
-so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Order as to the seconding of motions limiting-
So this means that in the committee of the whole, a seconder is not required for a motion. It is enough for a member to move it. That is the limitation. And I quote:
*	limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
There is nothing here contrary to clause 43:
When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by Mr. Speaker.
The reason for this is very simple and I shall repeat it. It is that those who wrote the bills saw to it that the members be not required to be satisfied with a non-official or informal translation.
I do not wish to blame the interpreters. I know the problems of the work they have to do; it takes an expert and a professional to translate immediately at least the general line of thought of a speaker. But a translation that is exact, precise and official is not the same thing.
That is why those who laid down the standing orders saw to it that the members before voting would be supplied with the exact sense and the exact wording and that is why they wrote:
-it shall be read in English and in French by Mr. Speaker.
Not "or" in French, it is written:
-it shall be read in English and in French.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that we have been waiting for the official translation of this motion for the last 15 minutes shows they were right.


Auguste Choquette: The member presents the amendment to the chairman and it is up to the latter to translate it, it is not up to the member who moves it.


Gilles Grégoire: The member who moves the amendment is not required by the standing orders to translate it. That is admitted, as the member for Lotbiniere mentioned. The mover of an amendment such as the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) is in no way required to translate it, he has moved it in one of the two languages and that is enough. It is up to the Speaker or the chairman of the committee of the whole to translate it. I recognize that the Speaker having to preside over the discussion with complete impartiality, is entitled to ask the assistance of the official translators.
This is quite normal and the Speaker or the chairman of the committees of the whole could not be asked to give an official translation, since they must be fair-minded. It is not up to either of them to make the translation.
That requirement of the legislator that the Speaker read a motion in French and in English is so fair and wise that on reading the English text of this motion, I find two phrases
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting which have been mistranslated. Personally I would hesitate to translate them, because it is difficult to find the proper terms in French to convey their meaning.
For instance, are we going to say "opportunite balancee" for "balanced opportunity" and translate word for word? I know we have "balanced feeds" for livestock, but are we going to say "opportunite balancee"? Personally, I cannot translate the expression and I cannot blame our interpreters for not having found a translation forthwith.
Again, when we say "differing views", do we mean "vues differentes"? What is translation for then? The legislator has provided that when the official translation is asked for, the Speaker must give it. I find that quite ^ in order. To my mind, the member for Medicine Hat must not object to it, because should a motion be written in French only, the English-speaking members may not understand it. But if they know French as my good friend for Medicine Hat does, they may not always understand and interpret it correctly.
That is why I suggest that the committee chairman has interpreted the standing orders properly, and I believe the point of order was not well taken.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I am sure the committee will be happy to know that we have a French translation of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


An hon. Member:: Is it official?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is
official.

That clause 2 (d) be deleted and the following substituted therefor as follows:
"the programming provided by the Canadian Broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources;"
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Patterson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you would be kind enough to render a decision on the question that has been raised, or to reserve the matter?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order,
please. If the hon. member is rising on a point of order, there is no point of order because the French translation has been officially read.


Alexander Bell Patterson: With respect, Mr. Chairman,
I believe the point of order still exists because there is a possibility this matter may be gravely misunderstood. If the decision or ruling of Your Honour is maintained, without the matter being considered adequately, we shall face impossible situations in future. I respectfully suggest that the Chair reserve its ruling until Monday. In the meantime, consideration could be given to the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, my recollection of the remarks of the Chair earlier is that amendments must be presented in writing in both languages. If that is a correct recollection of what the chairman said, then it is to that that the objection is being raised. The objection is to what the chairman said. Unless the chairman alters that decision it will stand in the records for the guidance of future chairmen of committees. I think that the chairman must now clarify the situation.
If I have correctly quoted the chairman's statement and the situation is not clarified, respectfully, in that case, I should have to make an appeal to Mr. Speaker.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Because of the many ramifications of the decision I think, before any decision is finally made on the matter, there should be some consultation with Mr. Speaker. The matter is reserve. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Nowlan) agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee will now revert to subclause (c).


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This paragraph was stood in view of the amendment moved to it by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. He asked me to look at it and see whether I might accept it. I have done that, Mr. Chairman, and have told him why I cannot accept
January 26, 1968	COMMONS
it. I am sure he will want to say something further before other questions are put, and after he has said something I might make a contribution. I recall he did provide copies in both languages.


Mr. Nugeni:: Mr. Chairman, my amendment to paragraph (c) was to add between the words "expression" and "subject" in line 19 thereof as follows:
-and the right of Canadians to receive all broadcast programs available to them.
So that the amended clause would read as follows:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression and the right of Canadians to receive all broadcast programs available to them subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations is unquestioned.
My French being what it is I will not bother to read the French version, but it is available.
The reason behind my amendment is a simple one, and I did speak to it the other night. We want to be careful in this bill to preserve freedom of expression along with the duties of broadcasters. I therefore thought it appropriate to add these words. Having the right to freedom of expression, we should also have the right to freedom to receive the programs that are broadcast.
A similar amendment to mine had been moved by another hon. member which added the words "by any means whatsoever", but I thought this carried the concept too far. This would have left it open to the interpretion that there should be no interference in any way with any kind of cable distribution system or any other method of rebroadcasting or distributing programs. My amendment merely reserves the right to receive all programs. I believed that by removing those offensive words, which I thought went too far, my amendment would be acceptable.
The minister has indicated that she is not prepared to accept the amendment, and she has been kind enough to give some of her reasons. However, since there has been so much agitation and a fair amount of lobbying on this question, and so much has been made of the right of an individual who has a T.V. set to watch whatever programs he desires, I feel a refusal to accept this amendment would be the worst kind of censorship. In my opinion, the bill should specifically state that we want to preserve the right to receive all programs, in the same manner and to the same extent
DEBATES	6039
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that we felt it necessary to include in this clause the right to freedom of expression.
If the minister does not want to accept the amendment, then I hope she will be kind enough to indicate her reasons and whether a variation of the amendment would be acceptable. In other words, Mr. Chairman, would I be fair if I were to ask the minister whether her objection is simply to the ideal of emphasizing the freedom to receive, or is it based on the fact that, as worded, the amendment is capable of an interpretation that would create difficulty for regulatory authorities in the control of cable distribution systems, and so on, and the solution of problems posed thereby? Perhaps the minister would say a few words about that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the objection I have to this amendment found support both from the Department of Justice and the Board of Broadcast Governors. In a general way, may I say that I do not think any of us believe there is or should be a restriction on the reception of programs that are received in the normal course. However, signals must come from a properly licensed station. For example, if a pirate station were set up outside the 12-mile limit, although the people might be able to receive its broadcasts, we would not want them to receive them unless the station were licensed. Being a pirate station it would not be licensed and the B.B.G. would have no authority over it.
Technically it would be possible to set up a broadcast or a rebroadcast station and make its programs available to everyone. However, I do not think the B.B.G. should be required to license them simply because such stations are technically feasible. Other considerations come into play, such as whether or not a C.A.T.V. or a rebroadcast station of some kind should be licensed in a given area. Sometimes the B.B.G. turns down such applications because they believe that a broadcasting station will at some time in the future be built in the area and this would be more in the interests of the community concerned.
The difficulty that both justice and the B.B.G. inform me they see in this amendment is that the phrase it seeks to add to the bill means different things to different people. They feel that it would make the bill unnecessarily restrictive if it were open to the interpretation that signals that were echnically possible of transmission ought to be received by all. These signals may come from a
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting C.A.T.V. station, or an originating station within or without the 12-mile limit.
There is no quarrel wih the proposition that operators who are licensed and lawfully transmitting signals should be able to broadcast to all. However, we do get into this problem. Consider, for example, the C.A.T.V. operator. Let us say that he wishes to rebroadcast four United States signals. In giving this operator a licence the B.B.G. requires that he also carry at least the national program of Canada from his local station. If people have the right to receive all programs, this operator technically could pick up 10 or 12 signals, but he would be able to transmit only about six. So a conflict arises there in that the hon. member contends that people have the right to receive whatever programs are available to them, and these programs would be available if the C.A.T.V. operator broadcast them.
The law officers of the crown and our technical advisers, the Board of Broadcast Governors, do not feel there should be any stricture on the right to receive programs, any more than there is a stricture on the right to read newspapers. But if parliament were to endorse such a broad principle and say that all programs should be available to the people, this may cause considerable difficulty in the application of our licensing requirements which have to be set out in the different parts of the act.


Mr. Baldwin:: Might I ask the hon. lady a question. Does she mean by her remarks that in the eventuality a pirate broadcasting station were to be set up outside the three-mile limit-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is 12 miles.


Gerald William Baldwin: -the government is reserving unto itself the right to prohibit people from receiving such signals, be they radio signals or television signals? Does her rejection of the amendment proposed by the hon. member amount to this?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It would appear from what the minister has said that part of the difficulty arises because my amendment includes the phrase "all programs". I am reluctant to drop the point. I understand the minister's dilemma, but I do not think we are too far apart. Suppose I put in the expression "and the right to receive programs" rather than "all programs". That might ease the difficulty.
My reasoning is simple. In this clause we are pointing to responsibilities which the government feels it is necessary to enunciate. I feel there is a right to receive programs, subject to rules and regulations, just as there is a right to freedom of expression, subject to rules and regulations. This seems to be the place at which to include a reference to this right. I gather that the minister herself feels that this is a proper attitude to take and that our difference arises from the wording itself. If I am correct in this assumption I wonder whether the hon. lady would mind indicating whether she thinks it is possible to work out a form of words which would simply remind us of the right to receive programs, and to have those words included in the bill without offending the feelings of those who will be called upon to handle this act and who fear it might be made unworkable.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not happy about the proposal to put this in subclause (c), because this subclause deals with the obligations and rights of licencees. It might be better in (e) or in a separate subclause altogether dealing with the right of Canadians to hear programs. I have told the hon. member what my advisers think of this. I am told that the ramifications are too wide, and I am advised not to accept the amendment.
I realize, of course, that nothing sinister is intended by the hon. member-it seems absurd that anything sinister could come from him-but I think, on reflection, that I
January 28, 1968	COMMONS
should accept the advice of my officials in this regard.


David Vaughan Pugh: Might I ask another question? The minister suggested there might be a possibility of incorporating the amendment in a separate subclause. I had the impression from her words, and their manner of delivery, that she was loath to turn it down and would like to find some way round the difficulties she mentioned. She says she is bothered because we are dealing with a subclause affecting licencees. I have the feeling that deep down she recognizes there is discrimination as between those who receive a loud and clear signal and those further away who get a much poorer signal but who still have the right to listen to it and who, by the use of cablevision, would be able to get a loud and clear signal just as though they were living near the border. Would the minister consider the matter from this point of view? Perhaps she could come up with a proposal of her own along the lines put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and incorporate it in the bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Possibly the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona would like 2 (c) to stand again. This would give him a chance to talk with some of the law officers of the crown in an attempt to find words which could be placed in a separate subclause.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think that would be a good idea. I am sure it is the wish of the committee generally that we should express approval of the right to receive. Let us leave it until Monday and in the meantime try to find a formula which will not have the consequences that the minister's advisers fear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have not intervened in this discussion so far, but I believe it would be a serious error of judgment if we were to leave the subject in the absence of an indication that there is no restriction on the right to receive programs. I understand the minister's position. She has been given certain advice and feels compelled to pay attention to it. But the only inference flowing from what she has said is that there may be, on the part of the government, the right to prohibit reception in some cases. I hope the minister and her officials, bearing this in mind, will strive diligently to come up with something which rejects such an implication.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Therefore I sincerely hope that you will give your support to the application that has been presented to your department from citizens of the town of Napanee.
Thank you, I remain,
Yours very truly,
Lome A. Smart, Mayor of Napanee.
Franchises have been handed out all around us but Napanee has been ignored. Just an hour ago I communicated by telephone with the town of Picton, which is the county town of the county of Prince Edward. I am pleased to hear that a franchise has been granted by the government for C.A.T.V. there. Picton can well use such a service because most of the town is situated at a low altitude, below and on the north side of MacAulay's mountain. I am glad to hear that a franchise has been granted there to a local and reliable firm.
My question is one being asked by hundreds of Napanee citizens, why is the franchise for Napanee being withheld? I note that there is at least one other application besides that of Mr. Dawson. I note that it is in the name of an Ottawa man, who has made an application to serve the towns of Prescott, Gananoque and my native town of Napanee.
I contend, and I am sure all members of the committee will agree, that these franchises should go to applicants who are local, taxpaying citizens of these towns if they are able to perform the necessary service. The government has no right to grant these franchises to large syndicates which operate remotely out of larger centres, and which have no real local interest in a town like Napanee other than the acquisition of thousands of dollars or revenue per year. This revenue would be siphoned off to the larger centres and would not be spent within the local municipality. For that reason I repeat what I said last June 22.
I contend, and I am sure the minister agrees, that a responsible local application such as this from a resident of the municipality, where cable facilities are economically and physically feasible, should be quite in order. Indeed, it should command top priority. I contend that the Department of Transport has no right to withhold a franchise for this service providing the operator of it agrees to comply fully with the regulations governing the lighting and marking of his tower so that it will not endanger the flight of aircraft.
As Mayor Smart pointed out in his letter, franchises have been granted in other towns

in Ontario, and yet the Napanee franchise is refused for no good reason at all. I appeal to the hon. lady, whose bill we are dealing with, to use her good influence to see that a franchise is granted to the local applicant for the town of Napanee, in order that the best interests of all may be served. Television reception in Napanee is far from perfect because of the town's low altitude. We are entitled to prompt consideration and I intend to ask for early appointments with both the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport for Mayor Smart and his council-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend but I have absolutely nothing to do with that licence. It is the happy duty of my hon. friend, the Minister of Transport, to reign over that particular empire. Much as I would like to see Mayor Smart and his people, it would only be wasting their time.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I fully realize that the hon. lady does not have the responsibility, but I have merely asked her to use her influence with the Minister of Transport.
I congratulate the hon. lady for the constructive criticism she made of the C.B.C. not very long ago. Her criticism was of programming and management. Of late, criticism has been levelled by the general public at that body. I just wish to say that I have received many letters of condemnation regarding some of the ill taste that has been displayed in programming. I am sure that the management of the C.B.C., both executive and programming, will respond to the reasonable and firm protests of the Canadian viewing public, and will exercise proper restraint with respect to the character and quality of T.V. programs.
I remind them that the character of these programs to a great extent is commensurately reflected in the character of our people. Their influence on our people is in direct ratio to the quality of the programming. In this regard I am reminded of that ever reliable axiom, "Habit crystallizes into character."
I also wish to say that this chamber is the place where this bill can be turned into good legislation, legislation that will be an influence for good and which will provide reliable guidance to the executives of the C.B.C.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Although I am also one of those who at the present time asks for better value for our dollars invested and for better economic practice in the C.B.C., I am still one of those who
January 26, 1968

has confidence that despite our present troubles good judgment and good management will result from our current far-flung national criticism of this body and from the legislation that we are slowly but efficiently bringing forth.
I have heard that members of the cabinet are becoming very impatient at the time we are spending on this bill. I should like to remind these impatient ministers, whose interests are now diverted to personal glories on the Liberal leadership hustings, that this is a very poor time for them to portray impatience because the majority of people look on this legislation with intense interest. I should like to remind the government that Canada deserves-and let us hope that from our deliberations here, will get-better broadcasting services and better value for the tax dollar.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the minister for the flexibility in accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. In so doing, I believe she has shown that she is willing to listen to criticism from the opposition side of the house. I am of the opinion that we could rapidly conclude this aspect of the debate with regard to the content of C.B.C. programming, matters of good taste, additional forms of programming and so on, if the minister would simply rise and say to the house, "I will recommend to the C.B.C. that in its operation it pay due respect to the principles enunciated by the Minister of Justice when he made a statement to the nation that in his opinion the state has no right to enter the bedrooms of the nation". From then on I am sure we would be quite safe. Would the minister do that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should know that it is not under the 1958 statute, and is not likely to be under the current statute, my responsibility to give instructions to the C.B.C. So far as the Minister of Justice's principles are concerned, I think he can stand on his own feet.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There has been a suggestion that subclause 2 (c) stand. Is it the wish of the committee that this be done now?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to speak to the question of subclause 2 (c) today rather than on Monday. However, I will be here on Monday as well as today. I regret having to indulge in personalities, but I must say, after listening to the hon. Secretary of
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting State when she appeared before the broadcasting committee-I have the minutes of proceedings and evidence here in front of me and will read them to you shortly-and from her explanation today that it is quite apparent she does not understand a community antenna television operation. There is nothing the matter with the C.A.T.V. operation either in Canada or elsewhere in the world. The comments which have been directed toward the C.A.T.V. operation are beyond my belief for ignorance.
I was first elected to this House of Commons in 1962 and saw the hon. member for Niagara Falls here when I came in as a member of the opposition. There is no member of this house for whom I have a higher regard. She stood up today and said that she has a recommendation from the Department of Justice. I marked down her words. She said: "I am bound to accept this recommendation of the Department of Justice and the Board of Broadcast Governors". I should like to ask her why she and I stood up together and voted the Diefenbaker government out of office when we would not accept a ruling of the Department of Justice from a man by the name of Dreidger who was advising the Diefenbaker government regarding import and export taxes. It is a very short time since she and I stood together and refused to accept the statement of the Department of Justice as passed on to us by the then minister of justice, Hon. Donald Fleming.
In 1963 the hon. member for Niagara Falls and I stood together with many other members of this house and turned out the Diefenbaker administration. Now, after we have come to the seats of the treasury benches we get another opinion from the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice makes such magnificent recommendations that they must be accepted by the minister and if they are so important she is bound to stand by them, why has Mr. Dreidger been moved to Hamburg, Germany where he is the third or fourth assistant consul.
1 he Chairman: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is now well outside the ambit of the clause which is before us. Perhaps he would return to the actual subclause.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am referring to the statement of the Secretary of State to the effect that she is bound to accept the recommendation of the Department of Justice. I am pointing out that in the past she did not consider herself bound
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to accept the recommendation of the Department of Justice. I have made the point that if Mr. Dreidger is so wonderful, why is he still not in the Department of Justice.
Just now the Secretary of State made the statement that if the people have the right to receive all the programs on the air what do we do about places where there are 12 programs available on the air but the receiving set of the C.A.T.V. can only bring in seven? This would mean that there were five which could not be received. All Canadians have the right to read whatever magazines and periodicals they wish to read. Thank God the cabinet has not started to interfere in that field. Does that mean we must buy every magazine and periodical? We have the right to buy them, but when we do not buy them this does not interfere with the importance of the right to information wherever we can get it. If we subscribe to a service which brings in only five out of the eight or ten available channels on the air, that is our business; it is our money we are spending.
As I said before in the month of October, I believe, when this bill was first introduced, this is perfect legislation for the past but pays no attention to the future development of radio and television in this world. I sincerely believe that television as we know it today is on the way out and that the C.A.T.V. systems will take over the entire field in time. On the question of C.A.T.V., I have in my hand here minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 6 of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and the assistance to the arts for Tuesday, November 28. On that day Hon. Judy La-Marsh, Secretary of State, was present. As reported at page 166, in answering a question asked by Mr. Jamieson, Miss LaMarsh said this:
-I am not very familiar with the economics of them-
That is, the C.A.T.V. systems. Then on page 167, in answer to another question by Mr. Jamieson, Miss LaMarsh said:
-but of my own knowledge I do not know that much detail about it.
Then, as reported at page 167 in answer to a question of mine she said:
And they fill those five channels with other than local stations. The local station is not capable of being received on the C.A.T.V. that one gets in one's individual home. It blanks out.
Now, in respect of that third quotation I have given you I say to the Chairman and to others in the House of Commons that every time a C.A.T.V. operation has been licensed

in the Dominion of Canada the application has been submitted through the Department of Transport which refers it to the Board of Broadcast Governors. Finally, the licence is granted if the department so decides. There has never been a C.A.T.V. licence granted in Canada which did not have, as the first specification, that the system must pick up the local available Canadian station. Someone will say that he knows of a C.A.T.V. system on which one cannot receive a local station.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If there is a C.A.T.V. station in this country on which you do not get a Canadian station, and I know for a fact there are several, it is because no Canadian station is available in that territory. I am told by men who know, one of whom is generally sitting in the house, that there are C.A.T.V. installations in British Columbia that have nothing but United States stations on them because no Canadian stations can be received. If a Canadian station could be received the Department of Transport, under the Minister of Transport, would specify in the licence that the Canadian station had to be on the dial of the C.A.T.V. installation. There is not a single C.A.T.V. installation in Canada on which a Canadian channel that is available has been shut off, because the Department of Transport has always specified that Canadian stations which are available in the location must be carried on C.A.T.V.
If the Secretary of State is going to worry about the fact that some wires today in the cable system will only bring you five or seven channels when there may be ten or 12 channels available in the area, let her stop worrying too much about that. The C.A.T.V. systems operation is progressing so fast, and I have mentioned this in the house before but take the time to repeat it today, that wires which will take up to 30 channels are now available. If the Secretary of State, the Department of Transport and the Board of Broadcast Governors are going to worry about some places having 12 programs available but only five channels on the C.A.T.V. installation, let me assure them that a wire can be put in which will carry more channels on the C.A.T.V. installation in Canada than there are programs available for the area. This is a straight statement of fact which nobody can deny. In Hendersonville, North Carolina, there is a C.A.T.V. installation today that has 23 channels on the wire although there are not 23 programs available in that area of North Carolina to fill these
January 26, 1968

channels. They have a wire there that is bringing in all the available channels, with a lot of other blank channels as well. I mention 23 channels to you because to my knowledge that is the maximum in use at the present time.
Let me remind the minister that the electrical industry in the world today can produce wires that will carry 30 channels, so she need not worry about any channel being kept off by the C.A.T.V. system. If a channel were kept off the C.A.T.V. operator would be doing so contrary to the requirements of the Department of Transport.
This is not the principal point in this discussion on the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. This point involves the right to receive programs available in an area. I have said in this house many times, and I repeat it again now-the little episode which occurred at noon today does not bother me in the slightest-that I have the highest regard for the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I am not buttering her up but stating an opinion I have held for several years. One of the things I admire about her is that she is not only the Secretary of State, she is also the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
When there was a move afoot, on behalf of certain interests I will not name, to move the Barrie T.V. station into the metropolitan Toronto area where it would interfere with the reception of two television stations from Buffalo there was a meeting held of interested members who wanted to protest the possibility of such a thing happening. Five cabinet ministers showed up at that meeting, one of whom was the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
If the cabinet believes that the only right we should give to the public is that those licensed to carry out broadcasting undertakings must accept the responsibility to protect freedom of expression, why were those ministers protesting the move of the Barrie station? If the Barrie station had been moved it would have interfered only with our right to hear or receive programs from two Buffalo stations. We now have the minister stating that we are giving the broadcasters the right to freedom of expression, unquestionably. Why was there such a protest about the Barrie station moving into the Toronto area and interfering with the reception of two Buffalo stations? I still say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If there were justification for protest against that threatened move by certain financial
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting interests, well known in this house, why have we taken the position of telling a C.A.T.V. operator that we are not interested in reception now but only interested in the unquestionable right of a station to broadcast? Only a few months ago five cabinet ministers were present at a meeting to protest this proposed move. As far as I can see now, two of those five at that meeting are here in the house. It is very strange that they were protesting about that interference with reception, but now tell us that all the government is willing to grant is the unquestionable right to freedom of expression. We are talking about the right to receive all programs that are available in an area. If the public wants to pay out money they should have the right to do so and get what they want in the area.
I can remember in the early days of radio, going back some 40 years now, when there was a big radio operation in Chicago which, over the course of the years, developed into one of the biggest radio houses in the world. That operation had the slogan "mighty monarch of the air", and hammered home again and again the advertising phrase "the air is full of things you should not miss". This phrase sold millions of radio sets in the United States and Canada. I am sure many members of this house will recall that advertising slogan. The operator of that station was not foolish enough to suggest that the air was full of things and we should not miss any of them. It is a simple fact that the public is only able to hear and understand one program at a time. This operation did not suggest that the air was full of things and we should not miss any.
We are not demanding that every program in an area should be made available to every Canadian who wants a C.A.T.V. installation. However, we are saying that if a Canadian family wants to pay money to get programs, other than those available to him through the local T.V. station, that family has the right to spend money to that end.
What justification is there for the statement that a C.A.T.V. application should be turned down because a second station may be built in an area? I am thinking of Napanee, Gana-noque, and Prescott, to which I referred some time ago by using a letter I received from the Secretary of State. We were told that the applications were turned down because the establishment of a second T.V. station in that general area might be inhibited. I pointed out at the time that the next station to go in there, according to the white paper and the
604S
January 26, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting report of the committee on broadcasting, would be a C.B.C. station. Certainly, any interference with a second station would not bother the C.B.C. because it pays no attention to money. Why should the people in the Prescott, Gananoque and Napanee area have been deprived of C.A.T.V. service in the past, at the present and for heaven knows how much longer, because the cabinet is rescheduling, prolonging and drawing out operations? We must bear in mind that the cabinet is cutting back the expenditures of all departments, including the C.B.C., in this rescheduling and drawing out operation. I say to you that as far as the residents of that area are concerned, the air is full of things they should not miss. Why do they have to wait until the cabinet finds there is enough money left over, after equalization payments to the provinces, to extend the C.B.C. into the Kingston area?
The people in these areas should have the opportunity of choice today. I could not agree less with that if there were 15 programs available in the Prescott-Napanee-Gananoque area. If they want a C.A.T.V. system with only five channels, that should be their choice.
There is one other point I should like to deal with in respect of what the Secretary of State said in commenting about the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. She talked about putting out signals. C.A.T.V. installations do not put out signals; they are only a reception area. They receive; they cannot put out signals under the licences that are granted to them by the Department of Transport. I am not arguing that C.A.T.V. should be given the right to put out signals; but when they are only receiving, why should there be a limit on the number of stations that can be licensed throughout the Dominion of Canada?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am old enough to remember the time when the government used to try and collect a little tax on radio receiving sets. I call it a tax, because if I am not mistaken it was $2 and at a later date it was increased to $2.50. A tax was put on receiving sets throughout Canada in the days of the Canadian Radio Commission, following the Aird report. If there ever was a more unpopular tax than even the tax on tea in Boston, it was that radio tax which the government tried to collect from the people of Canada. It was called, euphemistically, in government circles a


licence fee, but to the people who were called upon to pay it, it was a tax.
There are men in this house of an age to remember the days when an uproar developed with regard to this tax. If a family had two or three radios in its home, did they have to take out a licence in respect of each radio, or did the $2 licence fee cover the radios used by the household? The interpretation was first given that you had to have a $2 licence for each individual set. Then, there were radios in motor cars. The government had not changed its mind on the matter and said that you had to have a licence, or pay this fee, for a receiving set installed in a motor car.
I do not know whether this next statement is any credit to me or not. I think it is, although many in the house may disagree with me and think of it as a black mark against me. I can tell you that I am the man who said to Mackenzie King in the course of a general election, which the Liberals won, that they should remove that tax on multiple radio sets in homes and on radio sets in motor cars. If any hon. member wants to check on this he will find that there was a general election at that time and I made this suggestion. I came down from Toronto and the matter was discussed by a large number of Liberals.
Today we do not have a tax on receiving sets anywhere, and I do not think Canadians as a whole would go for it any more; they are much happier paying for the C.B.C. through the general taxation to which they are subjected than having people coming around and checking on the number of sets they have. Members of the house will remember that people used to go around counting the aerials over houses. Then people did not put aerials up, in order that the inspectors, as they were called, could not count them. The inspectors would then knock at the door and ask how many sets were in the house, because people were hiding the aerials. All that is past and gone, but not forgotten.
We have not imposed a licence fee or tax on receiving sets in years. Are we going back to that system now? I say to you, as a Liberal, that the public have the right to know. It is only about six years ago that the daily newspapers of Canada carried a tremendous advertising campaign, and the theme of it was the public's right to know. Is the cabinet of Canada, in 1968, going to deny the public's right to know by stating, "We will not put the C.A.T.V. system into this area in which somebody wants to operate a station, because the
January 26, 1968

local television operator might lose a little money if we did"? I could not care less whether the local television operator loses money as a result. Does the cabinet care about how much revenue the newspapers are losing to television? Why do they worry at this time about the local T.V. operator and whether or not he is losing money?
I would ask members of the house to read pages 166 and 167 of the report to which I have referred. This afternoon the hon. member for Queens was talking about the way in which C.B.C. puts programs over the air. He pointed out that when the C.B.C. starts to build up a program to prove that the earth is flat, they get the finest looking and most suave people they can find to prove that it is flat. Then, they get a bunch of dumb bunnies to prove that it is round. A few snide questions are asked about those who contend the world is round, thoughts are expressed on the other side, and finally the people appearing on the C.B.C. who contend the world is round are called "squares".
If you want to read some insinuating questions on this subject, read pages 166 and 167 of the committee report for November 6. You will find a T.V. station owner who is on the broadcasting committee of the House of Commons asking the very kind of question to which the hon. member for Queens referred today when he talked about a program to prove that the world is flat. The general tenor of the questioning on pages 166 and 167 is that C.A.T.V. systems will put the local stations off the air. I do not like to say it, but it is a straight statement of fact. He was questioning the Secretary of State, and she does not know too much about C.A.T.V.
In several places on those two pages she says that the local Canadian station is blanked out. I can only say that there is not a case in Canada where the local Canadian station is blanked out, but that answer is in this official government report. These are the answers of a lady who I think is smart, smart, smart. I have read those statements. The hon. Secretary of State said that she was not very familiar with the economics of this matter, and of her own knowledge she did not know much detail about it. We have her answers and are supposed to take them as being official. There are more facts on this subject than appear in the reports of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
I do not think for one moment that the Secretary of State alone is responsible for the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting attitude that she is defending in the house. She said this afternoon, "I have to accept the opinion of the Department of Transport; I have to accept the opinion of the Board of Broadcast Governors". She would not be here piloting this bill through the house if she were not representing the idea of the entire cabinet as to suitable and satisfactory legislation with respect to a broadcasting policy for Canada.
I am certain that the cabinet does not know as much about C.A.T.V. as the Secretary of State. She has at least made a little study of it. I know a former member of the cabinet who knew a lot about C.A.T.V., because he was concerned with keeping it out of areas in which there were T.V. stations. He only kept it out because he knew a great deal about it. He was not interested in the welfare of the general public who were being deprived of programs because of his action.
I have said before that I have been hoping the cabinet would have the good sense to alter clause 2 (c), as suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Perhaps the cabinet would propose a new clause or even withdraw the clause for a while until a clause could be inserted guaranteeing freedom of information to all and the right to receive information to all. But no, the Secretary of State stands up today and says she cannot accept the suggestion and justice department tells her she should not. She says, also, that the Board of Broadcast Governors advises her-you have to admit, informally-that she should not change the policy as expressed in clause 2 (c).
I have said before, and repeat again, that if this clause is passed by the Pearson administration, it will deny Liberalism. It will deny the public the right to know. I do not care how many people do or do not look at C.A.T.V. programs, but if there is somebody in Canada who wants to look at a C.A.T.V. program and there is a commercial operator ready to make the installation so that he can look at it, then the operator should be allowed to make the installation and the member of the public should be allowed to look at the C.A.T.V. programming. It is as simple as that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have protested against this ridiculous situation where the broadcaster has the right to express himself but the public does not have the right to receive these expressions if
6048	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting they so wish. I have mentioned before, possibly at a meeting of the committee on broadcasting, that some years ago I secured in Toronto the opinion of the supreme court of British Columbia regarding cablevision out there. In the committee I reminded the Secretary of State, who is an able lawyer, she had said to me in a private discussion one day that I should read the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia on the matter of cablevision because I would find the Canadian government had the right to tax and to licence the operators. I said to her in committee that I had obtained the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia and that I had had it for some years in Toronto. However, now that I was in Ottawa I would obtain another copy.
I received from the supreme court library xeroxed copies of the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia. The point at issue in this decision was that the province of British Columbia was endeavouring to regulate the C.A.T.V. receiving sets and to tax them on their commercial business. The cablevision operators objected to coming under provincial control. They went to the court on the matter, and the province of British Columbia, through the public utilities commission, prosecuted the Victoria Cablevision Limited and two other receiving station operators. The decision was that cablevision does not come within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments but is a federal matter. It is interesting to note the various references made by the judges of the British Columbia supreme court by previous decisions of the Privy Council that the transmitting of a signal and its reception cannot be separated.
The province of British Columbia was trying to do that very thing by arguing that the C.A.T.V. installation in British Columbia, which was receiving signals from, say, the United States came under provincial jurisdiction and therefore the province could tax and regulate it. The judges of the supreme court of British Columbia dismissed the argument of the province and said it was a federal matter. I would draw the hon. members' attention to the fact that the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia handed down on March 22, 1965, has never been appealed.


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

DEBATES	January 26, 1968


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It was my understanding that the subclause would be stood until Monday so that the Secretary of State could receive further advice from the Department of Justice and from B.B.G.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to make it clear that it is not for me to get that advice but rather for my hon. friend from Edmon-ton-Strathcona. I understand he is in the process of doing that. I certainly agree the subclause should stand until Monday, if that is the wish of the committee.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause 2 (c) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause 2 (f) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall subclause 2 (g) carry?


Robert William Prittie: Surely we should consider the four paragraphs under subclause (g) one by one.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee wish to consider the four paragraphs of subclause (g) in order?
Is paragraph 2 (g) (i) carried?


Robert Norman Thompson: No, Mr. Chairman. I
assumed that subclause 2 (c) would be carried over until Monday, but in view of the fact that we have stood this subclause and have moved on to paragraph 2 (g) (i), there are a few remarks that I should like to make before we call it five o'clock. The remarks which I have made during the committee's study of Bill No. C-163 were a result of the viewpoints that have been expressed to me in copious correspondence which came to me from constituents. In my previous remarks, I stressed the point that it is our responsibility in approving the legislation before us to ensure that the guide lines which we lay down for the management will be effectively implemented by them. I think this has not been the case during recent years in the programming by the C.B.C. and by private television, although I believe we are dealing strictly with the public broadcasting corporation.
What concerns me about the general trend of programming is the responsibility which the public broadcasting corporation bears in this respect, and with which we cannot deal
January 26, 1968

effectively in the house, toward those institutions in our country that form the very fibre, the very warp and woof, of the Canadian way of life. I am concerned, too, about those younger people who do not have the selective ability to turn off the television set when there is something on it which they do not wish to see or which perhaps they should not see. It is a truism that television at the present time is potentially capable of strengthening and unifying our country, but if it is not properly supervised and controlled it can have the opposite effect. I think that the vast majority of parents in this country who cannot be at home all the time to supervise the turn of the dial on the television set are concerned about the lack of control by the C.B.C. management over programming.
Therefore I suggest the addition of a few words to paragraph 2 (g) (i) which, as was the case with the amendment which I moved to subclause 2 (c), are very mild in tone. In spite of that, they are of great importance in setting down guide lines for management in their control of programming. Therefore, I wish to move:
Paragraph 2 (g) (i) be amended by adding the following:	"... while safeguarding sound family
life. No program may be shown which could be considered encouraging to criminal activity".
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Since it is five 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.


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



RIGHT OF PRIVACY ACT OF 1967 MEASURE TO PROVIDE SAFEGUARDS, PENALTIES, ETC.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-19, an act respecting the right of privacy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Bill No. C-19, an act respecting the right of privacy, since the subject is of great importance to the maintenance of democratic institutions and procedures. It is of increasing importance in the type of society that is evolving today.
Right of Privacy Act of 1967
I first heard of wire tapping just before the first world war when the miners of Sandon and Silverton in the Slocan country were on strike. The miners discovered that management was wire tapping conversations between the two villages of Sandon and Silverton. After the miners discovered this, they got two Gaelic speaking miners to carry on all discussions over the telephone, and from that time on management was in a bit of a fog.
I next heard of wire tapping when wire tapping was used with respect to certain illegal information in connection with race track results and things like that. The information relayed related to gamblers who were carrying on their work illegally. Then, throughout the years, I heard of wire tapping again in connection with its use, along with certain other mechanical devices, by spying agencies and those who were engaged in criminal activities.
Since then I have read numerous books, such as "The Intruders"-The invasion of privacy by government and industry-by Senator Edward B. Long, and "The Eavesdroppers" by Samuel Dash.
This matter came to prominence generally to the people of Canada when a landed immigrant, E. P. O'Neal, otherwise known as "Casey" bugged the meetings of the pulp and paper workers of Canada in Vancouver as the result of co-operation with personnel of the R.C.M.P. At that time, Lloyd Craig, who was a personal friend of mine and well known to me, died in his bedroom. I might say that his loss is mourned by the entire community of Castlegar and by all those in the trade union movement who respected his character, his integrity and what he tried to do for the formation of the Canada pulp and paper workers union organization in British Columbia.
May I quote from the report of the commission of inquiry into invasion of privacy. I wish to quote part of that report to indicate the urgent need for amendment to the Criminal Code to correct the situation. I shall begin quoting part of the report at page 4:
The chief officers of the International Union became alarmed at what was happening and contacted a man who was going under the name of E. P. O'Neal at that time and who was then secretary of the British Columbia Federation of Labour and employed him as an organizer to attempt to bring order out of the chaos which had arisen.
The report then goes on to say:
The pulp and paper workers of Canada organization scheduled a convention at the Ritz Hotel in Vancouver for November 5, 1966. O'Neal conceived
January 26, 1968

Right of Privacy Act of 1967
the idea of attempting to ascertain knowledge of their future actions and plans. He already was acquainted with two officers of the security and intelligence branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and discussed his problem with them.
I shall deal at greater length with the activities of these gentlemen on this subject at a more appropriate time. I continue:
As these two individuals, Cpl. Reed and Const. Ouellette were in that branch of the force to which the questions of security of the state are assigned they were naturally interested as policemen in some of the individuals who were taking part in the activities of this union. There is no evidence as to the background of these individuals but I have no doubt that their reputations and actions were discussed.
It is clear that the three of them discussed the best ways and means of obtaining the information that O'Neal sought. The corporal suggested to O'Neal that he might plant an informer in their group and procure some information. With this advice O'Neal did not agree. There were several discussions during which O'Neal raised the question as to the use of "bugging" devices and asked them if they could recommend someone who could render him such a service.
The officers at first decided against taking this step but subsequently they called a private detective named Bud Graham who had been a former member of the force and who had served along with Reed and told him that he would be called by a "labour leader or someone high up in the movement." Then Reed advised O'Neal to contact Graham and make his own arrangements with regard to the undertaking he wished him to take on.
At this juncture it may be appropriate to consider the position of the force as a whole. Counsel for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police asked that I find that as a force that body was in no way involved in the events which took place in the first week of November at the hotel. Counsel further asked me for a finding to that effect.
In considering this request I am faced with the fact that no evidence was tendered by the force as such, although a responsible officer of that body was at Miss Christie's elbow instructing her at all times. Any cross-examination which might have elicited the facts was strenuously objected to, and finally ended in the filing of an affidavit of the minister claiming privilege and the invoking of the Official Secrets Act. All of these actions effectively stopped any evidence being elicited which would have enabled me to decide whether or not Reed and Ouellette were conducting a "caper of their own."
Reed and Ouellette are experienced members of the force. At the time of their interviews with O'Neal and with Graham and all their subsequent actions they were officers in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a force has not taken any steps to explain its position and I find it impossible, unless there is evidence to the contrary, to come to the conclusion under the circumstances that any information obtained by officers of the law was not obtained officially. Consequently, I feel I cannot come to the conclusion that the force has divorced itself from the actions of Reed and Ouellette.

My one criticism of those two officers is they did not clearly impress Bud Graham with the fact that his employment by O'Neal was in no way official and that O'Neal was employing him to further his own ends. They certainly left the impression but not the word wTith Bud Graham that employment by O'Neal was official. Mr. Graham, stated that he had a clear impression that what he was doing was for the general benefit of Canada and helping the force of which he had formerly been a member, which statement I accept.
Graham, after consultation with O'Neal, arranged for quarters in the Ritz Hotel and proceeded to plant his devices. From these he was able to monitor or tape all conversations that took place not only in the convention but also in the bedrooms of the leaders of this movement.
One room that was monitored was the bedroom of Lloyd Craig who at that time was president of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada. His room was shared with one, Macphee, who apparently was the "Grey Eminence" of the movement. Craig was suffering from a grave deterioration of his internal organs including his heart. During the night before the convention opened he died.
I wish to refer to one or two other statements in this report.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I find that as the law now stands Graham is in no way to be censured for his actions. What he did was done on the advice of his counsel. O'Neal himself was advised by Graham that he, O'Neal, had nothing to fear from the police as no crime had been committed and advised him not to admit anything. O'Neal did not take legal advice and instead of evading questions or stating "no comment" gave a blanket denial to the newspapers in which he denied any knowledge of the facts narrated by Graham. This denial Mr. Fleishman submitted triggered him in his subsequent actions and advice, which have already been characterized above.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. O'Neal was giving evidence under oath before the judge he had to admit that he had told a confounded lie on that occasion. I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that there is nothing in the law to prevent this type of operation being conducted in the country at this time. That is why I, among others in this party and I am sure in the house as well, am keen to get the situation remedied.
I should like to quote an article from the Toronto Star for August 31, 1966, which indicates what can be done in this respect:
Ben Jamil, head of Continental Telephone Supply Co. in New York city, which claims to be the biggest manufacturer of electronic bugs, told the Star he has made whopping sales to the Canadian government.
Mr. Jamil, inventor of the olive-in-a-martini transmitter (the toothpick is the antenna), says $30 million worth of bugs were sold to Canada by his and associated TJ.S. companies "in less than a year-the past year."
January 26, 1968

Though the majority of the equipment went to private and industrial buyers, "a healthy proportion was sold to the Canadian government," Jamil said.
Was much of this destined for the R.C.M.P. directorate?
"It wouldn't be fair for me to tell," Jamil replied. "Why don't you ask them?"
By "them" he means the Canadian government.
I should also like to read a brief extract from "Current History" for July, 1967:
Wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping: Con
The right to privacy is indeed the most comprehensive of all rights. A society which cherishes liberty and human dignity cannot do without it; a society which seeks to suppress freedom cannot tolerate it.
Then the Toronto Star for September 7, 1967 carried the heading "Lawyers asked to demand ban on bugging except by police". According to the article, at a meeting in Quebec city lawyers were asked to pass a resolution that was drafted by the Civil Liberties and Criminal Justice sections of the Canadian Bar Association for submission to a convention. I understand that that resolution was later adopted almost unanimously with provisions to protect our national security and to deal with certain very difficult criminal elements.
I should also like to quote briefly from the Ottawa Journal for August 25, 1967. I was very pleased to read this statement. The report is datelined Calgary and reads as follows:
Solicitor General Pennell said Wednesday electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping should be banned except for national security purposes and crime fighting, with permission given by a court.
I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) will remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) that he has failed to include an amendment of this type in his bill which makes many worthy amendments to the Criminal Code. I am pleased to hear that the Solicitor General is in favour of legislation to stop invasion of privacy by wire tapping and other mechanical methods of eavesdropping, but I repeat that I hope he brings this question to the attention of the Minister of Justice before the bill amending the Criminal Code is finally adopted so that a clause dealing with this very important subject can be included.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all bills on the order paper concerned with this subject should be referred to the justice and legal affairs committee of the House of Commons for consideration along with the present
Right of Privacy Act of 1967 amendments proposed to the Criminal Code. This would give an opportunity to hear witnesses on the matter and to make a report to parliament.
My bill, Mr. Speaker, simply undertakes to deal with this situation. It provides for the protection of our national security and makes provision for dealing with certain criminal elements.
Clause 6 of my bill reads as follows:
Sections 3 and 4 of this act shall not apply where a person is duly authorized in writing by a judge of a Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction to conduct a search or investigation, at the request of the Minister of Justice of Canada, in cases affecting the national security of Canada.
Clause 7 provides:
Sections 3 and 4 of this act shall not apply in the case of a peace officer or other person acting in the course of his duties and duly authorized in writing by a Justice of the Peace or a Magistrate to conduct a search or investigation for the purpose of the administration of justice, at the request of the Attorney General of the province concerned.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, paraphrasing the explanatory notes of the bill, may I point out that Mr. Justice Brandeis has referred to the right of privacy as being the right most valued by civilized men. Several outstanding jurists in Canada share the same opinion, and I am glad that the Solicitor General also shares that opinion. It is advisable to protect that right adequately and to stop the various forms of invasion of privacy.
The purpose of this bill is to provide that wire tapping and eavesdropping are prohibited except in the case of the administration of justice and the security of the state. I know other hon. members want to say a few words on this bill, so I shall be very pleased to resume my seat at this time.


Mr. John R. Mafheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), particularly on an occasion such as this when he has given such thoughtful consideration to a matter which affects fundamental civil liberties.
It has been said that it was relatively simple to prohibit snooping by eavesdropping in the days when the human ear was the sole instrument for picking up sound; but today there are so many sophisticated electronic devices which do the same job without the snooper being anywhere near the premises that a whole new range of considerations apply.
The kind of equipment reported used by the Sargent inquiry will soon be considered
6052	COMMONS
Right of Privacy Act of 1967 primitive in comparison with gadgets that we are now told are being tested. I understand that it is possible to direct electronic beams from far away on to a window pane to pick up its vibrations and translate them into sounds, thus eavesdropping on conversations in the room behind the window.
George Orwell forecast that by 1984 dictators or governments will be able to listen in on everything that is going on behind closed doors. It will soon be possible to bug every cottage and boardroom in the country.
The question then arises what do we do about this? My hon. friend from Kootenay West has presented a constructive and responsible bill which certainly requires the most serious consideration. I suppose the most recent event to cause widespread interest was that arising from the royal commission of Judge R. A. Sargent. According to the Vancouver Sun for August 10, 1967 the royal commission conducted by Judge Sargent on the invasion of privacy heard more than 100000 words of evidence from 80 witnesses during 57 days of public hearings between December and June of last year.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The inquiry was triggered by the electronic bugging of a Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada union convention last November.
The Daily Colonist of Friday, October 18, last says:
Snooping of this modem kind is abhorrent in principle, and creates mechanical Peeping Toms to an extent that could be dangerous ... It strikes at the root of individual freedoms.
The Victoria Daily Times has this to say:
It is an integral part of the free and democratic system of life in Canada that the state shall not infringe on personal rights, and privacy is a right which will have to be more jealously guarded as time goes on-
Commissioner Sargent would make unauthorized eavesdropping a crime, along with possession of equipment which is capable of infringing privacy or receiving or monitoring police calls-
The inquiry conducted by Judge Sargent has stimulated serious consideration particularly on the west coast, by members of the Canadian Bar Association, civil liberty groups and by concerned citizens. The Montreal Star of August 18 says:
Electronic eavesdropping-whether it be wire tapping or some other form of bugging-is a repugnant invasion of the right to privacy. And the bugging business is booming. It has become a tool of industrial espionage, it has been employed by labour unions in jurisdictional disputes, it has been used by individuals to eavesdrop on their neighbours and their spouses.
[Mr. Matheson.l
DEBATES	January 26, 1968
But to suggest an absolute prohibition against the practice might, in special circumstances, endanger the national security.
This is along the lines of the remarks made by my distinguished and experienced hon. friend. The article continues:
There is merit in some of the recommendations of the British Columbia's one-man Royal Commission into the Invasion of Privacy by R. A. Sargent, a retired county court judge. He has called for legislation outlawing electronic eavesdropping by anyone except police and federal authorities under restricted conditions, and he has suggested that the mere possession of equipment capable of infringing privacy or receiving or monitoring police calls be made a crime.
The editorial concludes:
The safeguarding of individual liberty must be a primary aim of any democratic society. The Prime Minister has called for a conference of federal and provincial governments to establish a bill of rights for all Canadians; we recommend that the right to privacy be included.
I know that the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) who is an experienced advocate and a person to whom much of the responsibility in this field has been assigned is, along with his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), deeply concerned about this problem. The Sun of Saturday, August 19, makes a contribution which is worth bearing in mind. It says, quoting the fourth amendment to the United States constitution:
The right of the people to be secure In their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The editorial concludes with the words of Judge Louis D. Brandeis of the United States supreme court:
The most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man is the right to be left alone.
On this, the writer comments:
The IT.S. Supreme Court knocked out blanket warrants because they provide no adequate judicial supervision or protective procedures. It acknowledged the seriousness of the crime situation in that country but asserted it was not right that the freedom of the many should be sacrificed to combat a relatively few members of society who do wrong.
What can be done about this situation? The question has been raised whether it affects, primarily, property and civil rights and ought therefore to come within provincial jurisdiction or whether in fact it is an area which can be dealt with under the Criminal Code. It has been suggested in British Columbia that there
January 26, 1968

should be safeguards introduced and penalties imposed to discourage the use or possession of electronic listening devices.
The attorney-general of that province, Mr. Bonner, feels that the appropriate statute is the Criminal Code of Canada under federal jurisdiction which would ensure uniform enforcement of "anti-bugging" laws in all the provinces.
A few days ago I was reading the biography of Norman Birkett "The Life of Lord Birkett of Ulverston" by H. Montgomery Hyde. Many of us recall that this great jurist was in Ottawa in 1947 and that he spoke with great effect in Washington before the bar association in 1950. I note, according to this biography, that in 1957, he was asked by the British prime minister, Mr. Macmillan, to become chairman of a small committee of Privy Councillors which all three political parties in parliament had agreed should hold an immediate inquiry into the exercise of the prerogative power of the Home Secretary of intercepting telephone communications-telephone tapping as it was commonly known. Lord Birkett, as he later became, was of Liberal persuasion. The other members of the committee were Lord Monckton representing the Conservatives and Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker for the Labour party.
The committee was given the widest possible terms of reference, in particular to consider and report upon under whose authority, to what extent and for what purposes this power had been exercised and to what use information so obtained had been put, and to recommend whether, how, and subject to what safeguards this power should be exercised and in what circumstances information obtained by such means should properly be used or disclosed. Incidentally, I believe that at this stage none of us who are now speaking to this bill know what actual conditions and practices prevail in Canada. I, certainly, do not have this information; I am not aware of any of the facts.
The report which Birkett himself drafted was presented to parliament, and contained these interesting conclusions;
1.	The right of the power to Intercept communications can only be surmised, but the power has been exercised from very early times; and has been recognized by a succession of statutes covering the last 200 years or more.
2.	The power is identical with the power to open letters and rests on the ancient power to intercept communications.
I might mention that there is another view, namely that the power rests on a compara-
Right of Privacy Act of 1967 tively modern statute, the Telegraph Act of 1868.
3.	The power to intercept communications is exercised for the prevention and detection of serious crime and for the preservation of the safety of the State.
4.	The power is now almost exclusively exercised by the Metropolitan Police, the Board of Customs and Excise and the Security Service. It is used with the greatest care and circumspection, under the strictest rules and safeguards, and never without the personal considered approval of the Home Secretary.
5.	The use of the power has been effective in detecting major criminals and preventing injury to national security.
6.	The exercise of the power in these limited spheres should be allowed to continue under the same strict rules and supervision and in the special circumstances set out above.
e (5:30 p.m.)
And finally:
7. The interference with the privacy of the ordinary law-abiding citizen or with his individual liberty is infinitesimal and only arises as the inevitable result of intercepting the communications of some wrongdoer. It has produced no harmful consequences.
My hon. friends who are interested may read the report of the committee of privy councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications which was presented to the British parliament in October, 1957, and may note that Mr. P. Gordon Walker, the labour member, had minor reservations which are contained on page 38 of the committee's report. Some of these are rather interesting, and are worthy of being referred to right now. I shall do so only in summary form. Mr. Gordon Walker stated:
In my opinion public concern about telephone tapping is such that if the interception of communications for the detection of crime continues as in the past there may be some danger of a weakening of the popular approval without which the police cannot in the long run carry on effectively.
I think that is a novel, ingenious, and probably very wise argument. He also said:
One of the factors determining the evolution of policy in regard to the interception of communications has been the state of public opinion towards the exercise of this power. .. the interception of letters to prevent the transmission of illegal lottery material was abandoned in November 1953; shortly afterwards the interception of letters believed to contain obscene matter was similarly discontinued. In my view the interception of communications should never have been used for either of these purposes;-
Mr. Gordon Walker concluded:
Public repugnance to the interception of communications has, it seems to me, increased and there should therefore be a further restriction
6054	COMMONS
Right of Privacy Act of 1967 upon the use of this power for the purposes of the detection of crime. In future the interception of communications should, in my submission, no longer be regarded as an admissible method of detection in what may be called ordinary cases of crime ... but should be authorized only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is the most extreme and urgent reason.
He goes on to spell out what he means.
The application of these new and much stricter standards of judgment by the Secretary of State should, I suggest, be such that the interception of communications for the detection of crime would in practice cease to be used for long periods of time. It would be a power held in reserve for unusual and extraordinary cases of the utmost urgency, in which there could be no doubt that the use of the power would carry overwhelming public support.
He makes a distinction between interception of communications for the detection of crime and for security reasons and purposes, and I think this is borne out by every study of the matter made throughout the world. Mr. Gordon Walker made this important point:
A far larger proportion of the information that the security service must discover is obtained by interception of communication than in the case of the Police or the Customs. A great deal of this vital information could be discovered by no other means. There cannot, therefore, in my view be the same sharp restriction of the use of the interception of communications by the Security Service as I recommend in regard to the use of this power for the detection of crime.
Even in the field of security the strictest possible limits should be set to the use of the power to intercept communications.
Then he states out what he thinks are two legitimate considerations, as follows:
(1)	direct counter-espionage and protection of high secrets of State;
I doubt that there is anybody who would seriously challenge that conclusion. Then he sets out the second, and remember that this is Mr. P. Gordon Walker of the Labour party:
(2)	the prevention of the employment of Fascists or Communists in connection with work, the nature of which is vital to the state.
Anyone who has gone into the recent studies resulting from the defection some years ago of Philby, and noted the inter-relationships between the various departments of the British government as they may relate to defence and foreign affairs, must appreciate that here we are dealing with an extremely sensitive area.
It is interesting to look at page 41 of the report of the committee of privy councillors inquiring into the interception of communications in Brtiain. On that page there is a table listing the number of interceptions authorized

DEBATES	January 26, 1968
by the British secretary of state. Running through the years from 1937 to 1956 I notice that under the heading "Police, Customs, Post Office and Security," interceptions by telephone totalled as few as 17 in any one year and never went higher than 231, and I would point out that this is in the United Kingdom which has a population several times that of Canada. The figure for the interception of letters is somewhat larger, ranging from a low of 90 in 1945 up to 1,192 in 1940.
Under the heading "Drugs, Lotteries and Obscene Publications" only ten interceptions by telephone are recorded, all of these taking place in the year 1955. Interception by letters ranged in total from as few as two in some years to a high of 714, and in five of the years from 1937 to 1956 there were no letter interceptions whatever. I believe these figures show the great reserve in the use of this power in Britain. They demonstrate that this privilege of the British secretary of state has been used with great circumspection, and I believe there has been no serious challenge to the conclusions of this committee which indicate that this power has been used wisely and well.
I congratulate the hon. member on his contribution to a very important subject. I have no doubt that there is much classified information available to the government. If not there will be shortly, when the royal commission on security reports, which will assist parliament to do the right and wise thing to preserve the high standard that now prevails in this country and, if anything, see to it that that standard is enhanced and improved.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the story of wire tapping, eavesdropping and bugging is in a sense the story of the erosion of our own personal rights and freedoms as science enables us to extend our ears to listen in many directions, even through walls and into places we cannot get physically. At the outset of my remarks, I wish to correct one false impression which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) may have left with the house when he said that in the case in British Columbia Craig died from a bug. I want to correct that. Craig died from heart failure; he did not die of a bug.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I read it into the record that he had this heart trouble. I did not suggest he died from a bug.


Grant Deachman: I am glad that we now have that corrected. Eavesdropping is an
January 26. 1968

antique word, describing the act of hanging around the outside of a house or window to hear what is going on inside. Science has enabled us to progress ever since we began to learn something about electrical communication.
Wire tapping is also a pretty old word which is still in use. It describes the act of tapping into a wire and physically attaching something to it whereby one can listen to a conversation being conducted over the wire. More recently there came the word "bugging", but even it is fairly old. It refers to devices which pick up signals from an induction current wire, and which magnify the sound coming from a considerable distance away, thus enabling people to listen through walls and across considerable distances. More modern devices are coming into use all the time, and they are being used by all sorts of people to pry into other people's affairs.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
These devices are not used just by criminals. As was pointed out by the commission of inquiry which investigated the invasion of privacy in British Columbia, automobile dealers in the city of Vancouver have found listening devices to be very handy in determining what price to set on a car. You simply walk into the car lot where you are met by a man known in the trade as a "liner". His job is to show you up and down the line of cars until you get an idea of the kind of car you want to buy. When you are hanging around a certain car looking as if you are about to talk seriously about it, he brings in a man known as a "closer". This is a man who is able to close a contract. He has the confidence of management. This man takes you into a little room where he discusses the price with you while the manager listens over the bugging device. Then he excuses himself from the room. I do not know for what reason, but we all know that we have to excuse ourselves from time to time.
After the "closer" leaves the room, the man and his wife talk together while he and the manager listen to the conversation. They speak about the price of the car. The woman tells the husband the amount of money he is able to spend. So, the manager and the "closer" then discuss what the price should be, what the offer will be, and then return to the room where the deal is closed. It works very well. The best automobile companies in Vancouver were using this method. These people appeared on the stand and gave evidence before the commission of inquiry into the
Right of Privacy Act of 1967 invasion of privacy. For weeks after that, one could hardly get anybody in Vancouver to buy a car except in the middle of a field. This is an example of commercial bugging used every day in business.
Some of the other ways in which bugging can be carried on are interesting. I should like to cite a few of these in case hon. members should run across them in the course of their duties in the House of Commons or when they go to cocktail parties. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen story by Bruce Phillips of February 20, 1965. This story comes from Washington. The article begins by asking a question:
Are you a martini drinker? Be careful the next time you take one. It may be listening to you.
It sounds outlandish and it is, but the electronic martini (microphone in the olive, antenna in the toothpick), is only one of a bizarre collection of snooping devices paraded before a senate investigating committee this week.
Then in a later paragraph the article continues:
As a dramatic demonstration, the committee chairman, Senator Edward V. Long, was startled to be told by one of the witnesses that a bowl of roses on his desk was bugged.
There are paragraphs which contain some explanation of some of the other devices currently in use:
A small dish-type antenna, freely available through the mail-order catalogues, called the "big ear", which magnifies sound a million times and can monitor conversations a block away. It costs $18.95.
That would be plus the tariff, exchange and sales tax if one were to buy it in Canada.
A laser-type beam which can be aimed at a room several blocks away and transmit back a television picture, with sound.
A small transmitter which can monitor telephone conversations from any distance, and is practically undetectable.
Then, the writer gives some advice concerning what we should do in this kind of world:
People who must talk in a room, he said, should unplug the telephone, turn on the shower and bathroom faucets, and turn on a radio or television set full volume.
We need to do that in caucus, but we do not have any taps there to turn on.
A private detective from San Francisco, Harold Lipset, showed some of the devices perfected on the west coast. They include a tie-clip microphone, an ordinary office stapler concealing a microphone, and a portrait with a transmitter buried in the framing.
6056	COMMONS
Right of Privacy Act of 1967
Mr. Lipset said there were 10,000 businesses in northern California alone which used devices to spy on their employees, and without citing his source he said 5,000 federal government offices also have snooping equipment.
In such a world what can we do to defend ourselves? I have here a number of clippings dealing with the ways in which such devices are used in Canada. This is not simply information which came from United States stories concerning uses there. This has to do with usage on this side of the border. The library of the House of Commons keeps a considerable file known under the old fashioned phrase "wire tapping". In that file one finds all sorts of clippings dealing with the amount of bugging which goes on in Canada. The following appears in the Ottawa Citizen for April 9, 1964:
Ernest Nuttall, 63, whose testimony helped acquit John Wasylenchuk of Burnaby, B.C., of second-degree murder charges in Seattle last week, said his own telephone was tapped.
"People have no idea of the extent of wiretapping today," he said in an interview. "They would be amazed."
Nuttall said: Police secretly have telephone company officials make records of telephone conversations.
In the same story another policeman denies this. Then, there is a story in the Edmonton Journal for August 12, 1964 which in part reads as follows:
Thomas O'Dwyer, an Edmonton real estate man who has become a central figure in a mysterious controversy involving the Alberta government, said Tuesday he suspects his phone is being tapped by the RCMP.
In another dispatch of the Canadian Press from Toronto which appears in the Ottawa Journal for May 6,	1964 we find the
following:
A Conservative member of the legislature said Tuesday that wire tapping and "bugging" of private conversations is prevalent in his own community of London, and probably throughout Ontario.
John White (PC

London South) told Attorney-General Wishart that auto dealers in London and the Bell Telephone Company used concealed microphones to listen in on conversations.
Then in the Toronto Globe and Mail for August 28, 1964 we find the following:
A. W. Miller, a lawyer who has acted for several clients whose phones were tapped, will contend that the law, the only one of its kind in Canada, is ultra vires, and should be quashed.
This was in respect of a bylaw in the city of Edmonton which would prevent wire tapping.
There is plenty of evidence in these clippings concerning wire tapping of all kinds

DEBATES	January 26, 1968
which is done commercially, which is done criminally, which is done by the police and which is done every day in major cities across Canada. The argument made on the side of the authorities is that crime proliferates in our cities and that they in turn use these scientific devices so that they can pry into the bedrooms or bug our paper clips in order to prevent crime and combat it. This is a danger to freedom. It constantly erodes our freedom. We will not be able to live as we have lived in the past under the old laws which denied police officers the right to use bugging devices to combat crime. At the same time, the criminal will have all the advantages of using these devices for the purpose of committing crime.
When we consider passing legislation of this kind which empowers a person to use such devices, we must remember that we are slowly eroding away a piece of our own freedom and that we must do it only after careful thought.
9 (5:50	p.m.)
This is not really the only way in which we are eroding our freedoms today as a result of the science we are building around us. Here, in the government, we are adding more and more computers to our operations. As these computers become more sophisticated and are able to contain more information, as they are cross-linked and connected with each other, we are approaching the day when the government will be able to press a button and up will pop instant history. The computer will provide statistics regarding our health, our finances, our ability to pay our bills, our army records, the number of times we have passed through stop streets or violated parking meters and all sorts of things. This information will be placed on cards and stored as a record of our actions. Whatever we build by way of communication devices may extend our capability and may improve our standards of living, but at the same time will mean we must live more and more in glass houses. That is perhaps one of the penalties we pay for the kind of progress we are making in the whole field of communications.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) deserves our compliments for taking a different approach to the suggested legislation respecting the right of privacy. He seeks not to amend the Criminal Code but brings a new bill before us which highlights the right of privacy, not the right to invade it.
January 26, 1968

I submit we should not develop a national anxiety neurosis about wire tapping and bugging devices. I know when the hon. member for Kootenay West travels westward to his home on the Kettle Valley railway he has time to worry that possibly these things are present around him. I should like to submit that all these measures of private members, of a similar vein, should not be pressed at the present time. Not only is the Department of Justice hard pressed with other Criminal Code amendments and the upcoming federal-provincial conference on the constitution, but there are other valid reasons for taking a little more time before bringing into force any legislation analogous to the legislation put forward by many members.
First of all, the report of the royal commission on security has not been tabled. It likely will take a very careful look at this whole field of wire tapping and will make recommendations. When the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), of a similar vein, was being debated, we learned that the Canadian Bar Association had this whole matter under consideration. Although the bar association did not get far with this subject at the last annual meeting, apparently it will be thoroughly studied in the interim. Likely when the next meeting is held in September of this year we will receive a very thorough and considered report on the views of that association. It seems to me there is not so much urgency about this matter that we would be prevented from waiting until we hear from this learned body.
I agree that this field needs to be controlled and regulated, but there is no necessity for ill-advised haste in this connection. I should hope that members will stand bills of this nature until next September rather than press forward with them. That is my own personal view of the matter. I am advised that the Department of Justice has received a number of recommendations in respect of wire tapping and electric eavesdropping devices. The deputy attorney general of British Columbia has forwarded a resolution of the Vancouver city council in favour of a Criminal Code amendment restraining wire tapping.
Business of the House
By a resolution dated October 26, 1964, the council of the corporation of the city of Toronto indicated that it is categorically opposed to the unrestricted use, whether in the process of law enforcement or otherwise, of any kind of mechanical or electronic device for intercepting or overhearing words spoken in conversation by one person to another, not intended to be heard by the person using such device. They expressed the belief that the use of such device is an offence against an individual's right to privacy, and as such should be forbidden under all circumstances except where a superior court judge otherwise orders for the purpose of criminal investigation.
The bill at hand, of course, recommends that a peace officer or magistrate have the power to otherwise order the use of these devices. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, by a letter dated February 14, 1966, urged in fact that the government sponsor legislation in respect of wire taping and offered in co-operation in studying the subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour
appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps someone could tell us the business for next week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have the information. I will see to it that the house leaders receive it as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might it be the broadcasting legislation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps it will be announced on television tonight. Mr. Speaker, before we leave, let me say I have just been informed that we will continue the debate on the new broadcasting policy.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 29, 1968