1968-02-05

Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-32 (from the Senate), to amend the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notices of
Motions:
February 2, 1968-The Minister of National Defence-That certain Regulations and Orders in Council relating to the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces laid before the House on Thursday, February 1, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is the federal government or any department or agency thereof proposing to help in the building of a bridge in the Vancouver area?
2.	If so, under what authority, on what formula will the contribution be based, and how much will it be?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. On March 15th, 1967, in a press release, the federal government announced that a third crossing of Burrard Inlet was under consideration and that the government of Canada was prepared to make a contribution to the project which would reflect obligations which are essentially national rather than local in character. On October 4, 1967, Hon. Paul Hellyer, Minister of Transport, announced the formation of a federal technical committee to work with technical representatives of Vancouver and the North Shore municipalities toward the determination of the location and type of a new crossing of Burrard Inlet. Information as to the cost, amount of federal contribution, location, and other particulars, will not be known until the technical committee complete their work.


C.N. TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS IN YUKON
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	For each of the years 1957 to 1967 inclusive, what was the total cost of the operations of Canadian National Telecommunications in the Yukon?
2.	For each of the years 1965 and 1966, how many employees were employed by Canadian National Telecommunications in the Yukon and what was the total amount of salaries and/or wages paid to such employees, including any allowances similar to isolated post allowances?
3.	For each of the years 1960 to 1967 inclusive, what was the cost of (a) the operation of the telephone system in the Yukon (b) the telegraph and telex systems in the Yukon?
4.	For each of the years 1960 to 1967 inclusive, what was the total revenue to Canadian National Telecommunications from its operation within the Yukon?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1, 3 and 4. Because of the nature and extent of the telecommunications business, financial results of operations, including revenues and expenses by services, are not maintained on a provincial or territorial basis. To attempt to break out the information requested would involve arbitrary allocations of revenues and expenses in many cases

February 5, 1968
Questions
and would entail a considerable amount of work and expense.
2.	Average number of
employees	1965	1966
133	138
Total salaries, etc. $834,202 $898,547
Difference in	total	salaries	reflects	wageawards granted	employees	as	well	as	additional staff.


ACQUISITION OF HEAVY TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the government on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence decided to acquire a number of heavy transport aircraft known as the C-141 Lockheed Starlifter?
2.	If so, how many such aircraft are to be bought, what is the schedule of delivery, and what was the date of the decision and that of the agreement to purchase?
3.	What is the cost of each including spares normally associated with such a purchase?
4.	Are any of these aircraft to be assigned the role of air refuelling for the CF-5 and what is the difference in cost of such an aircraft?
5.	In order to complete this order, is the manufacturer faced with reopening its production line for this type and, if so, has the government been advised of any increase in the per copy price as the result of such production problems?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1 am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Defence Production as follows: 1. Yes, subject to negotiation of a satisfactory contract.
2.	(a) Four aircraft are to be bought, (b) Delivery schedule: 2 aircraft, November 1970; 1 aircraft, December 1970; 1 aircraft, January 1971. (c) Treasury Board approval of the DND project was granted July 6, 1967 and Treasury Board authority to place a contract was granted July 11, 1967. (d) The United States air force offer to provide these aircraft was accepted July 14, 1967. This offer was conditional upon USAF being able to place a contract for manufacture of the aircraft with the United States contractor.
3.	The estimated cost of each aircraft, including spares as provided by the USAF offer, was $10.3 million Canadian.
4.	Yes, the specifications include a removable inflight refuelling installation.
5.	The manufacturer would have to reopen many portions of the production line to fill this order. The United States government has

advised the Canadian government that it is unable to make arrangements to provide the four aircraft and has offered an alternative proposal, which is now under consideration.


BLUE WATER BRIDGE COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Alberi):
With reference to the Blue Water Bridge Commission (a) what were the total reimbursements paid to each of the four directors of the said Blue Water Bridge Commission (b) what benefits do the regular employees enjoy and with what companies (c) does the said commission have legal counsel and, if so, who and what have been the fees?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) The reimbursements to each of the four Canadian commissioners for the calendar year ending December 31, 1967 for their expenses while travelling for the Blue Water Bridge Authority are as follows: Mr. John S. Blunt, $200.00; Mr. Thomas Milway, $1,339.70; Mr. Jack D. George, $1,194.40; Mr. Gregory A. Hogan, $287.71. (b) The benefits enjoyed by the regular employees and their dependants are as follows: i. hospitalization benefits with the Ontario Hospital Services Commission; ii. surgical-medical-obstetrical benefits with the Ontario Medical Services Insurance Plan; iii. group life and group health insurance with the London Life Insurance Company; iv. group retirement annuity plan with the London Life Insurance Company; (c) Yes. The legal counsel of the Blue Water Bridge Authority is the Sarnia firm of McCart, McEachran, George and Curran. The total fees for the calendar year ending December 31, 1967 were $308.50.


CANADIAN LOANS TO ENGLAND
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Has Canada granted any loans to England since 1938?
2.	What was the amount of each of these loans?
3.	What was the interest rate on each of these loans?
4.	What was the date of maturity of each of these loans?
5.	What amounts were not paid back at the date of maturity?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4 and 5. The Public Accounts of Canada reflect the information shown on the attached schedules, which also show details as to interest rates and repayments.
February 5, 1968

Questions
Schedule I Fiscal
Loan to United Kingdom under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942 (non-Interest-Bearing) to be fully repaid by December 31, 1958 Fiscal year
ended	Loans Repayments Balance	
March 31	(in millions of dollars)	
1943	700.0	700.01944	42.4	657.61945	55.1	602.51946	63.9	538.61947	95.8	442.81948	111.3	331.51949	29.5	302.0
year ended March 31
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
Loans Repayments Balance (in millions of dollars)
9.9	292.1
40.6	251.5
31.1	220.4
24.3	196.1
53.6	142.5
30.0	112.5
30.0	82.5
30.0	52.5
30.0	22.5
22.5	
700.0	
Schedule II
Loan to the United Kingdom under The United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946 (Interest rate 2%)
Fiscal
year	To be repaid in 50 annual
ended instalments beginning	Loans	Repayments	Balance
March 31 December 31, 1951	(in millions of dollars)		
1947	640.0	640.01948	368.0	1,008.01949	37.0	1,045.01950	120.0	1,165.01951	20.0	1,185.01952	14.0	1,171.01953	14.3	1,156.71954	14.6	1,142.11955	14.9	1,127.21956	15.1	1,112.11957	15.5	1,096.61958 Repayment of principal deferred	1,096.61959	16.1	1,080.51960	16.4	1,064.11961	16.7	1,047.41962	17.1	1,030.31963	17.4	1,012.91964	17.8	995.11965 Repayment of principal deferred	995.11966 Repayment of principal deferred	995.11967	18.9	976.21,185.0	208.8	976.2Deferred Interest	(Interest at 2% being paid on this account)	1957 Interest due Dec. 31, 1956 deferred	22.3	22.31958 Interest due Dec. 31, 1957 deferred	21.9	44.21965 Interest due Dec. 31, 1964 deferred	19.6	67.81966 Interest due Dec. 31, 1965 deferred	19.2	83.0
6342

February 5, 1968
Questions


RESTORATION OF SALMON SPAWNING BEDS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries or the Fisheries Research Board studied the possibilities for Canadian use of a specially designed machine called a "rifflesifter", which is being used in Alaska to clean silt out of natural salmon spawning beds, thereby making them again productive?
2.	Are there any plans to test such a machine for restoring natural salmon spawning beds in British Columbia?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. The Department of Fisheries' technical section in the Pacific region has followed the development in Alaska of the "rifflesifter".
2. The device in its present form is not suitable for use in British Columbia streams. Proposed modifications to the "rifflesifter" are being followed with interest.


FISHERIES STATISTICS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What was the total cost to the people of Canada of administering, in its entirety, the federal Department of Fisheries for 1965-66?
2.	What was the total landed value to the fishermen for all species of fish landed in Canada during *the same period?
3.	What are the corresponding figures for the current year?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. $34,525,757.
2.	This information is not available on a fiscal year basis as part of it is collected on a calendar year basis only. For the calendar year 1965 the total landed value was $160.6 million.
3.	Total expenditures April 1 to December 31, 1967, $33,770,827. Total landed value for 1967 is estimated at approximately $165 million.


FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will tenders be called for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and on what date is completion anticipated?
2. What is the estimated cost of this new building?
3.	What is the estimated size of the lot, the building, and how many floors will be constructed?
4.	What departments will make use of the building and how much space will be allocated to each of the departments?
[Mr. Sharp.}
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. A precise date cannot be stated at this time; however, if construction can be started during the summer of 1968 it is possible that the building may be completed during the autumn of 1969.
2.	It is not usual to publish the estimated cost of proposed construction before tenders have been received.
3.	The lot is 31,405 square feet in size. The building as now conceived will be 152 feet long and 38 feet wide, with a basement, seven floors above grade, and a penthouse.
4.	Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 3,730 square feet; the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 200 square feet; Manpower and Immigration, 1,875 square feet; Forestry and Rural Development, 12,470 square feet; and National Revenue, 690 square feet.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Mather: What in dollars was the amount of Family Allowances paid to recipients in each province during 1966 and 1967?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In the fiscal years 1965-66 and 1966-67 the following amounts of family allowances were paid to recipients in each of the provinces and territories.
Province	1965-66	1966-67Nfld.	$ 16,945,059	$ 16,960,053P.E.I.	3,231,716	3,190,484N.S.	21,636,528	21,507,992N.B.	18,982,908	18,752,034Que.	164,972,052	165,095,827Ont.	182,377,587	185,309,485Man.	25,925,991	25,651,443Sask.	26,988,369	26,870,934Alta.	42,345,742	42,563,978B.C.	47,006,572	48,525,782N.W.T.	897,627	941,310Yukon	424,673	425,625Total	$551,734,824	$555,794,947


OUTSTANDING PERPETUAL BONDS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	(a) What is the total number of outstanding Perpetual Bonds registered in the names of corporations, societies or other organizations (b) what is their total value (c) what percentage is this of (i) the total number of such bonds (ii) the total value?
February 5, 1968

2.	(a) What is the total number of outstanding Perpetual Bonds registered in the names of individuals (b) what is their total value (c) what percentage is this of (i) the total number of such bonds (ii) the total value?
3.	(a) What is the total number of outstanding Perpetual Bonds unregistered or in the hands of bearers (b) what is their total value (c) what percentage is this of (i) the total number of such bonds (ii) the total value?


Mitchell William Sharp: As of December 31st, 1967, the answers are: 1. (a) 4,779; (b) $20,127,800; (c) (i) 9.8 per cent; (c) (ii) 36.6 per cent.
2.	(a) 11,059; (b) $12,859,100; (c) (i) 23.0 per cent; (c) (ii) 23.4 per cent.
3.	(a) 32,362; (b) $22,013,100; (c) (i) 67.2 per cent; (c) (ii) 40.0 per cent.


CONTRACTS FOR POST OFFICE WINDOW WASHING, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	When and for what period were tenders last called for the washing of windows at the following post offices (a) La Sarre (b) Amos (c) Normetal (d) Senneterre (e) Macamic?
2.	In what newspapers and on what dates did the said calls for tenders appear?
3.	Under the contract, how often must the windows in these buildings be washed?
4.	To whom were the contracts let and in what amount?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1, 2, 3, and 4; (a) La Sarre: Tender call for the washing of windows in the post office was advertised in Journal L'Echo d'Abi-tibi Ouest on May 26, 1967. A contract was awarded to Henri Tousignant at $2,600. for a two-year period for four washings per year, (b) Amos: Window washing done by D.P.W. employees, (c) Normetal: Window washing included in the general cleaning contract, (d) Senneterre: Window washing included in the general cleaning contract, (e) Macamic: Window washing included in the general cleaning contract.


GOVERNMENT SPACE IN PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Does the government propose to lease space in the new twin towers to be constructed by Campeau Construction and bounded by Queen, Lyon, Sparks and Kent Streets in the City of Ottawa?
2.	If so, what agreements have been signed or undertakings given?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: 1. There is no such proposal at this time.
2. No agreement has been made; and there have been no negotiations. No request for discussions has been received.


MALVERN LAND DEVELOPMENT, TORONTO
Mr. Stanbury: 1.	How long have the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario owned the Malvern lands which they hold in partnership, and what has delayed development of these lands?
2.	What progress has been made toward their development?
3.	How many housing units in this project will be available for occupancy in 1968?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The Malvern lands were acquired in 1953. The development of the lands is dependent upon the provision of primary services-water, trunk sewers, roads-by metropolitan Toronto. Arrangements were made recently with metro for the provision of primary services to the western half of the area.
2.	An engineering feasibility study was completed in 1967. Federal government approval was given in December 1967 to the appointment of consultants to plan the development. It is anticipated that the planning and engineering design can be completed and site work commenced before the end of 1968.
3.	It is not expected that serviced land will be available for construction of housing prior to 1969.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the minister of external affairs I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question is in relation to the momentous and critical developments now under way in Viet Nam.
Has the government of Canada received any fresh information from the government of the United States as to the progress of the conflict? Has Canada been consulted by the United States in the last 24 hours as to Canada's continuing role in Viet Nam, either on the control commission or otherwise; and has

February 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada been asked to make any contribution, either diplomatically or otherwise, in the light of the tremendous conflict now taking place in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think diplomatically I will refer this question to the acting minister, who is the Minister of Industry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a long and rather complicated question, which I should like to take as notice and provide an answer tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if the acting minister of external affairs is going to take that question as notice, would he also ascertain whether the government continues to feel there is any basis in reality for any useful role for Canada at the present time on the international control commission. Has that body not been overtaken by events, thus necessitating a reassessment of Canada's position and policy in Viet Nam by this government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the minister will want to consider the second question, but I should add that in my view this is more a statement of policy than a question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding his recent announcement of a $650 million contract for the sale of British Columbia coal to certain interests in Japan. Has the minister had any telegrams or communications from trade unions claiming that the information they have is that half this coal will be shipped over the Great Northern through the United States? Has the minister received such complaints, and has he been able to assure the unions, and can he assure the house, that this information is inaccurate and that the coal will be shipped over an all-Canadian route?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any formal communication that I know of, except that this morning I think there was a telephone inquiry to my office to determine whether there was to be a meeting between myself

and officials of the railroad, and I was able to reply to that in the negative. However, I have assured everyone I have talked to that the position of the federal government is that this coal should be carried over an all-Canadian route. If one examines the statistics and economics of the position it is impossible to come to any conclusion other than the one I reached and the one the government subscribes to, that it is in the best interest of Canadians for the coal to move over an allCanadian route. The economic benefits to Canada are not sufficiently great unless that is the case.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This matter is most important to British Columbia. In view of the statement the minister just made may I ask him whether a press report is correct, that on a recent visit to Vancouver the minister said the federal government would not agree to exporting coal from the Crowsnest area unless that coal was carried over an all-Canadian route.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if that question can be asked in this form. I realize the importance of the matter, but the hon. member knows he cannot ask questions about statements made outside the house, and he cannot ask the minister to verify the accuracy of press reports. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question directly.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your advice. May I ask the Minister of Transport if it is the position of his department and the government that coal exported from the Crowsnest area to Japan must be carried over an all-Canadian route.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press clipping the hon. member referred to but, as I indicated, the government thinks the coal should be carried over an all-Canadian route, and it is the government's intention for the coal to be carried on an all-Canadian route; because only in that way is there sufficient economic benefit to the citizens of this country who must undertake certain expenditures to facilitate the export.


Harold Edward Winch: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to explain what he means by the term "should" or "must" be carried on an all-Canadian route?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entering into debate. I think the supplementary question is not acceptable.
February 5. 1968


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the minister for his reply, and I think the house will agree that the coal should be carried on an all-Canadian route. Is the minister taking any steps to see that Kaiser Mines Limited, the corporation which negotiated the contract, will ship this coal over an all-Canadian route?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Officials of the company are coming to see me at the end of the week, I think, or at the beginning of next week to give me an opportunity to underline for them the government's position, which is that the company ought to make sure that the coal is shipped over an all-Canadian route.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house whether it is correct to say that the government undertook various expenditures at Roberts Bank, British Columbia, in order to facilitate the export of this coal over an all-Canadian route?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question suggests its own answer.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is supplementary to one previously asked of the Minister of Transport. There seems to be some doubt about when the minister will be conferring with representatives of the British Columbia government on the development of new port facilities in British Columbia to facilitate the shipment of coal to Japan. Can the minister inform the house whether such a meeting has been scheduled for the near future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be meeting with the premier of British Columbia tomorrow or Wednesday to discuss this situation.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I believe that role is being taken today by the Minister of Transport. My question arises from an earlier answer by the minister to the effect that the government is embarking on the laudable policy of transporting Canadian coal via a Canadian route. Will the minister use his influence with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see whether the same laudable policy can be followed to transport Canadian gas to Canadian customers?
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to address a question to the minister of defence. What proposals have been made by the United States government for Canadian participation in the new system of air defence which is contemplated for the North American continent?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: No proposals as yet, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question. Who are the Canadian representatives on the joint continental defence system integration planning staff which Mr. McNamara, United States secretary for defence, announced had been established?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We have
appointed a group of people from the Department of National Defence consisting of specialists in research and development and including of course, representatives from the Defence Research Board. The Department of External Affairs is also represented, I believe. An announcement was made on this subject last week.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister how many Canadian officials both civil and military are included on this joint planning group?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Offhand I would say about ten; some figure like that.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Can the
minister give some indication as to the date by which the government must make a policy announcement with respect to the new proposals for Canadian-United States air defence?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is no firm date set, Mr. Speaker. We are talking here about technological developments which afford many options to the governments of Canada and the United States. This is a development which is envisaged for the early seventies and I do not know that we have to make any immediate decision. It is necessary to study the problem, consider the options, determine what kind of part Canada can take and, after that, negotiate. It would then be up to the Canadian government to make a decision on the proposals we submit.

February 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
downsview, ont-investigation	[Translation]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure the house that every avenue of investigation is being undertaken in connection with the unfortunate plane crash at Downsview airport in my constituency last Friday night?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the most regrettable accident at Downsview is being investigated by an accident investigation team. The pilot was a qualified Tracker aircraft captain and was engaged in keeping his flying qualifications up to date. Accidents of this nature emphasize the problem of air fields near built up areas. In the case of Downsview there were over 50,000 landings and take-offs at the airfield last year, and I am informed that 55 per cent of these were by civilian aircraft. We are examining these problems very closely, and this was a subject for discussion at defence council this morning. In addition we have undertaken a review of all flying activities at Downsview.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to those servicemen who lost their lives in this unfortunate accident. It is a tragic loss, but we can be very thankful that others did not lose their lives.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Why was the naval Tracker aircraft, which crashed at Downsview, on that particular flight on which no training for its particular function could be secured?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As I said, Mr. Speaker, it was practising flying. There is no particular requirement for a naval plane to practise only over the sea. This was just a routine flying and operational trip.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question, does the minister not think trips of this sort are really unnecessary, in that the flying training required can be secured from the base at which these aircraft are normally found?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an expression of views from the minister, and I do not think this is in order.
[Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne) .1



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
What steps does the government intend to take so as to prevent Montreal harbour from closing down?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Instructions are standing that every effort should be made to keep the channel open so the ice can flow to the sea, and to provide whatever facilities are available for entrance to the port of Montreal. Our icebreakers are busily engaged in this undertaking.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Has the minister any information with regard to the charges by mayors of municipalities in this area that before the icebreaking there was no flooding?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member means that before we began icebreaking there was no flooding, that is not correct. If he would get a copy of the information I made available to the house last week he would find that flooding was much more serious in the area before icebreaking was undertaken on the river than it is at the present time, and I think he would be convinced that keeping the ice broken and a channel through to the sea is essential to the interests of the people who live alongside the river.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister not aware that we are talking about indiscriminate icebreaking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether the government has reached a decision concerning indemnities to the victims of the floods which, this year, have hit worse than in past years? Does the government intend to do something in that direction?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not care to be too dogmatic in this area without consulting my
February 5, 1968

officials, but since the flooding was really due to the severity of the winter it would, I believe, in the normal way be called an act of God, and I doubt whether any liability would be attached to the federal government with respect to it. But I say this without prejudice to any rights which may exist.



MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON LABOUR DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. While the Minister of Transport is looking after icebreaking and flooding in the St. Lawrence, could he tell us what is the present situation regarding the Montreal dock problem, and whether the government has any plans to bring about a settlement?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ontario, who is a former minister of labour, knows that at the present moment the I.L.A. and the shipping federation are in the midst of negotiating a new collective agreement, and a conciliator has been placed at the disposal of both parties to facilitate communication. We can only assume that the talks are going along in a very orderly fashion.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is aware that it is only a few days until the normal time arrives for negotiating sugar beet contracts in Ontario. Can he state whether the government is initiating any plans in an attempt to reopen the Chatham sugar refinery?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had any negotiations with the growers. I would think from press reports that some consideration is being given at the provincial level in this regard, and we will be pleased to discuss any suggestions with the province or with the growers.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In the light of the importance of the federal-provincial conference taking place at the moment does the minister have anything to report to the house about the progress of the conversations he is having with the provinces relating to the Juvenile Delinquents Act?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the officials in my department met with the officials of the provinces, and we are now in the process of contacting voluntary associations throughout the country asking them for their views on this important matter. We will then proceed to draft a new bill.


Frank Howard: Can the minister give any timetable indication of when this might be ready?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I hope that very early in the spring the drafting will have been completed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance so perhaps I may direct it to whoever is acting minister. It arises from recently published figures indicating that Canadian mutual funds are holding 45 per cent of their investments in United States securities as compared to 16 per cent in 1965.
I should like to ask whether the government is satisfied that everything possible is being done to encourage the investment of Canadian mutual funds in Canadian securities and to restore confidence in Canadian securities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member is asking the question in such a way that it is argumentative. He is asking whether the government is satisfied that certain action is satisfactory. That is not in order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to do this, but I should like to point out that the form of my

February 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry question is a form commonly used in Westminster; that is, whether the government is satisfied that everything possible is being done. I would not like to have the question ruled out of order on the basis that it is improper.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the only basis on which I can rule it out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then, Mr. Speaker, with all deference may I ask that you consider whether the form of the question in the way I directed it is in fact proper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may wish to place that problem in the hands of the committee which is to visit Westminster very soon.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to rephrase my earlier question to the Acting Minister of Finance. What action is the government taking to remedy the situation concerning investment by Canadian mutual funds in United States securities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we will have to look at the figures presented by my hon. friend. I should like therefore to take his question as notice.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Postmaster General. I wish to apologize for not having given him notice ahead of time, but I just received the information as I came into the house. I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether the same courtesy and consideration in respect of advertising by means of a cancellation stamp which has been extended to the Department of National Health and Welfare in its campaign against smoking will be extended to industry by his department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the question might very well be placed on the order paper.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue the question at ten o'clock.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the charming parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, about which I gave her notice three days ago. Has the minister or any person in his department received any representations from certain groups in Canada which wish to be excluded from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan on religious grounds? If so, what action has been taken to date?


Mrs. Margarei Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring this important question to the attention of the minister.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will information and studies be presented to the hearing on railway costing which is getting under way today, other than the costing analysis put forward by the railways under the old order 123994 of the now defunct board of transport commissioners?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there certainly will be additional information placed before the board and that this is the purpose of the hearing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Will this include the special studies which have been undertaken by several government departments?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not answer that question specifically, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FERRY SERVICE, SAINT JOHN, N.B.-DIGBY, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether he can relieve the anxiety and disappointment of the people of western Nova Scotia over the announcement made
February 5, 1968

on Friday to the effect that the transport committee will not be journeying to Digby. Could he offset that announcement by a positive announcement that negotiations have been concluded between the C.P.R. and the government? Will an announcement be made in respect of this perennial problem concerning a gap in our transportation system?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone is sorry that the committee will not be able to visit that part of western Nova Scotia. For many good reasons it would be a delightful journey, but I understand this is not possible due to the time available.
However, I can tell him that negotiations are continuing at a pace which is, if anything, accelerating. There is a level of rising expectation in so far as these negotiations are concerned, and I sincerely hope to be able to make an announcement much sooner than my hon. friend might think.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will the minister use his energy and enthusiasm to prevail upon the chairman of the transport committee to reconsider the retrograde step that committee has taken in respect of the transportation problems of half the province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a suggestion to the minister which I assume has been noted.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the question of studies regarding the status of women in member countries is on the agenda of the United Nations commission on the status of women, will the Canadian government appoint a Canadian to represent this country at the meetings of that which are now in progress?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: will make inquiries in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Can the hon. minister tell us why none of the three conductors on board the trains of the C.N.R. between Montreal and Ottawa can speak a single word of French, on the eve of the federal-provincial conference on bilingualism?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question is not necessarily urgent. If, in the opinion of the hon. member it is an urgent matter, because of certain circumstances, he can always give notice according to the provisions of standing orders.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is a question which has been asked for five years and to which we have always received answers reflecting the same good faith without correcting the situation in any way. I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I understood.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I wonder if the minister could not be asked to answer in such a way that the situation may be corrected as soon as possible.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON WOOD PRODUCTS IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as a member from British Columbia which has a great forestry industry I assure you that my question is important and urgent. I had hoped to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in view of his absence and the urgency of this matter I should like to direct the question to the parliamentary secretary or to the Acting Prime Minister. There have been recent reports to the effect that a United States government committee is recommending a reduction in imports of wood products from Canada. Has this been noted by the Canadian

February 5. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry government, and is any action being taken to make Canada's position known to the United States regarding this reduction of log, lumber and pulp exports to that country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had replies to six questions concerning the Department of Trade and Commerce but not to that one. I will answer it tomorrow.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his discussions with officials of Air Canada have yet resulted in an agreement by Air Canada to discontinue transfers of employees from the Winnipeg base to Montreal for the coming year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am afraid the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I have had some discussions with those officials during which they pointed out that there is an agreement with the unions under which they are operating. I think there will be negotiations between the unions and the company, and I hope this situation can be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister what happened to the government policy which he enunciated in Winnipeg some time ago to the effect that if transfers are made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement of policy, and I suggest that cannot be asked at this time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would have an important and quite urgent question to ask, in the circumstances, to the Solicitor General, since he is responsible to the house for the R.C.M.P.
Can he tell us how it is that while the federal-provincial conference on bilingualism

is in progress, the delegates are greeted on parliament hill by R.C.M.P. constables who do not know a single word of French?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is left unanswered; he knows that he cannot press for an answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think the Solicitor General was ready to answer, but he had not yet heard the complete interpretation. I am convinced that if the interpreter were allowed enough time to translate my question, the Solicitor General would answer.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the force is not up to strength in bilingual officers. We have been conducting an extensive recruiting campaign, and as soon as members are available they will be assigned to the hill.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the Canadian territory north of the sixtieth parallel will the minister inform the house whether representatives of the Yukon and Northwest territorial governments were invited to sit in as observers at the constitutional conference?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand there are representatives in attendance.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 in my absence the hon. member for Villeneuve asked the Prime Minister whether officials of the Department of Industry had applied pressure on a firm to locate in Ontario rather than in the province of Quebec. I have had extensive
February 5, 1968	COMMONS
inquiries made and am satisfied that no pressure has been exerted on any company, and in particular on the company referred to by the mayor of Hull, namely the Societe Frangaise d'Optique et de Mecanique to locate in Ontario rather than Quebec.
I may note in passing that the company did indicate through the news media that its reasons for locating in Ontario rather than Quebec were reasons other than those alleged by Mayor D'Amour.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence why, when there has been an agreement in respect of a joint meeting of the external affairs and defence committees in reference to NATO and NORAD, as well as an agreement in respect of Q.R. and O's, no resolution has yet appeared on the order paper.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The agreement was not unanimous, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood a decision was made that there should be such a reference to both committees. Are we now being told that these committees will not meet?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not expect me to refer to military matters or things committed to the defence committee at this time to the committee on external affairs. My predecessor undertook to refer to the defence committee the Q.R. and O's which would be changed as a result of unification. I was only complying with this commitment when I referred those to the committee.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roger Teillef (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked a question with reference to low grade meat supplied to the Queen Mary veterans hospital in Montreal. I now have that information. On or about December 1, I am informed, the
DEBATES	6351
Inquiries of the Ministry Queen Mary veterans hospital received a consignment of approximately 1,500 lbs. of beef bought through the Department of Defence Production from recognized meat retailers. This meat was stamped as high grade and subsequently turned out to be very tough although quite fit for human consumption.
On December 16 the next consignment of beef was received. Miss Kitty Freeman, chief dietitian, considered it was low grade in spite of the fact that it was marked "blue brand" and called in the agriculture inspector and the Department of Defence Production representative, who agreed. The meat was impounded and a new consignment of good, high grade beef was supplied. I believe the action of Miss Freeman should be commended.



NICKEL-REQUEST FOR BAN ON EXPORT FOR USE IN VIET NAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, another question came to mind during my period of meditation. I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Has he received any representations from the Voice of Women or similar organizations urging the government to prohibit the export of Canadian nickel to be used in the war in Viet Nam?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, and certainly personally, I have not received any such representations. I do know that the Voice of Women organization has been very active in trying to bring a halt to hostilities in Viet Nam, but I have not heard of this particular demarche in respect of nickel.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-153, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose on Friday last clause 16 as amended was under discussion. Shall clause 16 as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
February 5, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
On clause 17-Powers exercisable by executive committee after consultation.
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to clause 17. I was not one of the members of the committee who asked that this clause be stood-clause 19 is the first one I asked to have stood after clause 3-and I am indebted to the committee for having stood it. The marginal note of clause 17 reads "Powers exercisable by executive committee after consultation" and subclause (1) provides as follows:
In furtherance of the objects of the council, the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may
(a)	issue broadcasting licences for such terms not exceeding five years and subject to such conditions related to the circumstances of the licensee
(i) as the executive committee deems appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy enunciated in section 2 of this act-
However, paragraph (b) also says:
-the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may
(b)	upon application by a licensee, amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him;
I am the member for a Toronto riding, and it is only a few short months ago that quite an uproar developed in the Toronto-Barrie area over this very question of amending a licence for a broadcasting station. This involved the efforts being made by the owners of a television station in Barrie to move the station from Barrie to roughly the area of Palgrave, about 20 miles to the southwest of Barrie, which would have given them access to the Toronto market. When I say "Toronto market" I am speaking as a businessman and not as a viewer in the Toronto area of programs that are now available in that centre.
Such an uproar developed that the then minister of transport did not sign the paper which would have given them the right to move their station from Barrie to Palgrave and thus interfere with the reception of two very popular television broadcasting stations in the Niagara peninsula, in Niagara Falls and the city of Toronto.
The question I have to ask, and I am looking for a direct answer, concerns clause 17 in this new bill, which says that in furtherance of the objects of the council the executive committee, after consultation with the parttime members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may upon application by a licensee amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him. One of the conditions,
[The Chairman.]

surely, of a licence is that the licensee shall erect his broadcasting station in a certain area in order to service a certain district, because if he is not limited in his licence to the district he is going to serve he will be interfering with the electromagnetic waves that have been assigned to other broadcasters somewhat distant from him.
It is quite evident to people in the Toronto-Barrie area-and I emphasize both Barrie and Toronto-that under this clause the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may upon application by a licensee amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him, without any public hearing of any kind. You may just wake up in the morning and find that the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, have amended a broadcasting licence upon the application of a licensee.
In Barrie there is a licensee. He has a licence to operate a broadcasting station in Barrie, with a satellite in Parry Sound and I believe a second satellite in either the village of Haliburton or the village of Minden, but in any event in the district of Haliburton.
Is there to be no public hearing on such a thing as this? It has been said that the Bourbons never remember, and they never forget. Surely to heaven this cabinet must have a little recollection of the situation that developed some months ago. It was rough enough that a sure shoo-in for a ministerial post did not get it because of the uproar that developed. Surely the Bourbons on the front benches have not forgotten that episode, or should I remind them of it?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Clause 17 reads:
In furtherance of the objects of the council, the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may,
(b) upon application by a licensee, amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him;
There is more I wish to say in connection with clause 17, but I should like to ask the Secretary of State if our interpretation of these words is not correct, that the operator of a station can move it anywhere upon making application, provided he is able to convince the executive committee which will consult with the part-time members-and they can do that on the quiet, in star chamber
February 5, 1968

proceedings-or would such an amendment not be possible except after a public hearing?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I refer the hon. gentleman to clause 19, subclause (2).


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. lady for that fast answer. I am very much aware of clause 19. This is one clause that I asked be stood. Since we are now discussing clause 17 and the hon. lady has referred me to clause 19, I presume I can also discuss clause 19. I was going to discuss it anyway, and I feel the two should be discussed coincidentally rather than seriatim because there is a direct connection between them. Clause 19 is one to which I would be speaking at length, and it reads in part as follows:
A public hearing shall be held by the council-
Now, there is a forthright statement if you ever heard one.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member for York-Humber that the clause before the committee now is clause 17. I hope he will confine his remarks to that clause.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I tried to draw your attention to the fact that the Secretary of State referred me to clause 19 when I asked her a question about clause 17. Did you not hear her? I was discussing the application of clause 19 to clause 17 after the Secretary of State referred me to clause 19 when I aked her a question about clause 17. I was discussing clause 17 under the umbrella provided by clause 19, and in response the Secretary of State gave this fast reply, for which I want to thank her, referring me to clause 19 which has a direct bearing on clause 17. Clause 19 says that a public hearing shall be held by the council. Did you ever hear a more forthright, flat-footed statement than that? But then in subclause (2) to which the Secretary of State referred me, there is that little two letter word "if". The subclause reads:
(2) A public hearing shall be held by the council-
There you have that forthright statement.
-if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing-
If they are not satisfied it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing, then a public hearing is not held. There are the critical words. In the first part of clause 19 we find that a public hearing shall be held by the council. If you read that part quickly you do
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting not find the little two letter word "if". There are a lot of people in the Toronto-Barrie area who are interested in the Toronto-Barrie situation. We have seen this word "if" for a considerable period of time. I must presume the Secretary of State has read clause 19, subclause (2), because the answer she gave me was "Please read clause 19(2)". This is the same authority that referred me to the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia. After that I did refer to the decision of the supreme court of British Columbia, to which my attention had been called by the Secretary of State, who is a lawyer. I am quite prepared now to talk on clause 19(2), having been referred to it again by the Secretary of State, who is a lawyer. You will notice that clause 19(1) provides that a public hearing shall be held.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Again I must remind the hon. member for York-Humber that clause 17 is the one before the committee at the moment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Then I ask-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might interject at this point. I am interested in this particular matter, and I am also interested in clause 17 which gives the council the absolute right to hold a hearing or not to hold a hearing, in its discretion. I do believe that clauses 17 and 19 should be considered together; otherwise we will pass clause 17 and be met with this situation in clause 19. I would ask for a little leniency in this situation and I too ask to have the matter clarified.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The problem, of course, is that the standing order says we must consider the clauses in order. If it is the wish of the committee to consider clauses 17 and 19 together, then of course the Chair has no objection.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No; follow the rules.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There would have to be unanimous consent to that procedure. We are considering clause 17.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In connection with clause 17 I ask the Secretary of State if it is not correct that under this wording a public meeting does not have to be held to make an amendment to the conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to the holder of a licence; and I refer to 17(1) (a) and (b). Is there not going to be any
6354	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting answer from the treasury benches? I make the flat-footed statement that the Bourbons never remember and the Bourbons never forget. The cabinet is going to have the situation develop again in the Toronto-Barrie area that developed in that area a short time ago. No wonder the people ask who paid the Liberal party's debts after the last election when they see this consideration for business interests. Then we read-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I rise on a matter of privilege, which does not apply to me so much as to members in good standing in the Liberal party of Canada. I find, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member who makes great efforts to be offensive has really overreached himself today. He has impugned individuals who have been appointed by the government of Canada; he has impugned the whole process by which many individuals-most of them happen to have Conservative leanings, but that is not really very important-obtain licences in this country.
He has suggested that there was some sort of a pay-off in respect of what happened in connection with channel 3. I am sure the hon. member's memory goes back to the fact that nothing happened and, in fact, channel 3 is where it was originally licensed, in Barrie. On behalf of every Liberal in Canada and the Liberal party of Canada, who have nothing but contempt for this man, I believe he must now be required to withdraw the slur he has cast upon the honour of every one of them.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have impugned nothing. I reported what is publicly said in the Toronto-Barrie area. If you look at Hansard when it comes down tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, you will find that is the way I phrased it.
In this clause 17 we read;
(1) In furtherance of the objects of the council, the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may,
(a)	issue broadcasting licences for such terms not exceeding five years and subject to such conditions related to the circumstances of the licensee.
(i) as the executive committee deems appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy enunciated in section 2 of this act-
Then subclause (b) reads;
(b)	upon application by a licensee, amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him-
This clause simply continues the situation which now exists whereby a licensee can have his licence amended without any public hearing, without any evidence being heard from those who may be opposed to such a

DEBATES	February 5. 1968
move, without any evidence being heard from those who may be in favour of such a move. Why does the cabinet, in bringing in a brand new radio or television bill setting up a brand new broadcasting policy for Canada, continue in a rut? Why do they continue a provision whereby upon his mere signature, until this bill is passed, the Minister of Transport can amend the terms of a licence that has been granted to a person who applied for a television station or a radio station in one centre and may want to move it to another?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Under the provisions set out elsewhere in this bill-if I refer to them I will be told we are not on that clause, but I shall refer to them later-we are told that a public hearing shall be held. But I want to refer to that little word "if". I understand I cannot quote from other parts of the bill when talking on clause 17, but if my recollection is correct there is a clause that provides that a public hearing shall be held by the council if it is satisfied that it would be in the public interest. I ask, what is a public hearing that is not held? I was complaining a little while ago about the fact that although broadcasters are given the right to express themselves the people of Canada will be forbidden to hear them. It appears that the council is going to hold a public hearing, but only if it decides that it is in the public interest so to do.
Clause 17 simply continues the provision that it may be possible-and I would not doubt for one moment that this right will be exercised by present licensees-to have the executive committee, after consultation with the part time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, amend licences without any public hearing being held, without even consultation with all the part time members. The council has only to be in consultation with members who are in attendance at a meeting of the council.
How in the name of heaven can this committee pass clause 17, which allows these changes to be made in secret, when it will be asked to move on to and pass another clause which ostensibly calls for public hearings but which has that little word "if" in the clause that could kill the public hearing? I believe that clause 17 should definitely state that a public hearing must be held upon the amendment of a licence.
I have been talking about the Barrie situation because this is a lively subject in the
February 5, 1968	COMMONS
Toronto-Barrie area, but let us consider further clause 17 (1) (a). It reads:
17. (1) In furtherance of the objects of the council, the executive committee, after consultation with the part time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may
(a) issue broadcasting licences-*
What is the use? No public hearing will be held, or it is not necessary to have a public hearing. The council might well say that in furtherance of the objects of the council, which is not the public's concern, the executive committee, after consultation with the part time members in attendance at a meeting of the council held a couple of weeks ago, issued a broadcasting licence for such term, not exceeding five years, as the executive committee deemed appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy that is enunciated in clause 2 of the bill. I suggest that clause 17 makes a complete shambles of any effort to convince the public that public hearings are going to be held with regard to the issuance of broadcasting licences or for the amendment of broadcasting licences already in the hands of licensees.
I do not agree with the terms of this clause at all. Public hearings should be held. This clause is a nefarious one.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Hearings.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the four clauses that I asked to be stood when you were proceeding through the bill to see what unanimity there was on the clauses as a whole, many of which were passed. My original purpose in asking that clause 19 be stood had to do with C.A.T.V. matters.
I referred to C.A.T.V. in connection with clause 3. I also referred to clause 19, pointing out that it was possible that the council would not hold public hearings in regard to applications for C.A.T.V. licences. In discussing the previous clause I stated, and I now repeat, that it is going to be possible for the board of broadcast governors to issue licences to C.A.T.V. stations, a fact that the C.A.T.V. operators would welcome were they going to be issued after a public hearing.
Up to now, Mr. Chairman, a C.A.T.V. application has been nice and private. Even the applicants do not know the discussion that is held following which they are pitched on to the ash heap with their application. These applicants felt that if they were given a public hearing under this new bill, then
DEBATES	6355
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting compared to the Star Chamber methods of handling their applications up to now and as at this date it would be an improvement.
Clause 19 provides that a public hearing shall be held by the council. Boys, this is really something. The wording is "shall be held". In other words, it must be held, it has to be held. That is the meaning of the word "shall". That is why the word is to be found in a lot of our laws. However, Mr. Chairman, we find that the whole heart of the meaning of that wording is cut out when we come down to subclause 2 of clause 19, which provides:
A public hearing shall be held by the council, if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing, in connection with
(a) the amendment of a broadcasting licence;
If I cannot refer forward from clause 17 to clause 19 when I am talking on clause 17, then I wonder whether I can refer back to clause 17 when I am talking on clause 19. I was told I could not refer forward and perhaps I will be told that because clause 17 has been passed I cannot refer to a matter that has already been decided by a committee of the whole house. However, I am going to refer back unless somebody wants to cut me off. As I say, Mr. Chairman, clause 19 provides that a public hearing shall be held by the council. Then according to subelause 2:
A public hearing shall be held by the council, if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to hold such a hearing, in connection with
(a)	the amendment of a broadcasting licence;
That, Mr. Chairman, is just what the owners of the Barrie licence want, an amendment to their broadcasting licence, which now permits them to broadcast in Barrie with satellites in the Haliburton district and Parry Sound.
Reference back to clause 17, which was carried a moment ago, discloses the use of the same phrase:
In furtherance of the objects of the council, the executive committee, after consultation with the part-time members in attendance at a meeting of the council, may-
Again, in quiet.
(b)	upon application by a licensee, amend any conditions of a broadcasting licence issued to him;
That is confirmed in clause 19. To prove they mean it, they are willing to put in black and white twice the statement that a licence can be amended in private by the council, this new organization that is going to be set
February 5, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting up, if the executive committee is satisfied that it would be in the public interest not to hold a public hearing.
I suggest that this is a denial of the democratic process. These T.V. licences are worth a great deal of money. Lord Thomson, who is one of the business brains produced by this country, has stated that a television licence is the same as a licence to print money. So the cabinet is going to make it possible to issue in secret licences to print money. If an operator thinks he is not making enough money in the little area for which he has been granted a licence, then he can apply for an amendment and his application can be dealt with privately by this new broadcasting council.
Although my references have been to the Barrie-Toronto situation they apply also to C.A.T.V. applications in that the C.A.T.V. operators will be quite happy if they can be assured that there will be public hearings on their applications. They are not too certain there will be in view of the fact that a C.A.T.V. installation has now been defined as a broadcasting undertaking. While we have been told that a public hearing shall be held by the council in connection with the issuance of a broadcasting licence, under subclause 2 a public hearing shall be held only if the executive committee of the council is satisfied that it will be in the public interest. If they are not satisfied that it will be in the public interest, the C.A.T.V. application will be knifed, just as it is being knifed now in meetings that are being held informally between the Department of Transport and the Board of Broadcast Governors.
Since we are discussing clause 19 and not discussing the subclauses seriatim, I wish to refer specifically to clause 19 (7). Subclause 7 reads:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The council has, in respect of any public hearing under this section, as regards the attendance, swearing and examination of witnesses thereat, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement of its orders, the entry of and inspection of property and other matters necessary or proper in relation to such hearing, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record.
It was brought out at the hearings of the broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts committee of the House of Commons that if these powers are granted to the new radio and television council they will have the right to enter property or to send people in to look for documents. They will have the right to

enforce the calling of witnesses and the production of evidence as they may demand.
I ask you, is it necessary to enshrine this new radio and television council on such a basis that we may never be able to question anything they may do? Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in looking at subclause 7 please notice the final words, "in a superior court of record". I asked some lawyer members of this House of Commons, inasmuch as I am not a lawyer, what a superior court of record is and they informed me that a superior court of record is the same as a supreme court. Well, this absolutely flabbergasted me, if I may use such a term. Why should the new body which is to control radio and television be given powers equal to those of the supreme courts of the ten provinces? Somebody is going to tell me: This is only in respect of a public hearing. Bear in mind that everything a superior court does is done at a public hearing. This would mean that the radio and television council would have the same authority as the superior court, and I for one cannot see why they should be put in that position.
To carry it further, Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Commons, it is absolutely unbelievable that sane people should put such a clause into the radio and television legislation in light of the meaning of citation 251 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, 1943. Citation 251 reads:
The Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record and therefore may not be attacked except by way of impeachment.
The authority for that is given in House of Commons debates for 1928, page 3106.
I have gone to the trouble of looking up page 3106 of the Canadian House of Commons debates for 1928. You will find, if you look it up for yourself, that on that day there was a discussion on third reading of a private bill respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada which was seeking at that time to raise its capital from $75 million to $150 million. One of the speakers on that private bill on May 16, 1928 was Mr. T. L. Church, an ex-mayor of Toronto and at that time the member for Toronto Northwest.
Notice the mild comments that Mr. Church made on the Bell Telephone Company bill. We people from Toronto are more accustomed to calling him Tommy than Mr. Church. I will read to the committee some
February S, 1968

remarks found on pages 3105 and 3106 of the debates for May 16, 1928. Tommy said:
It would be interesting to know what regulations the Board of Railway Commissioners have over the issue of stock by this company. I fail to see any regulations regarding the sale of this $75,000,000, or any regulations providing for subscription to this stock.
You will notice that he is referring to the Board of Railway Commissioners there. A little farther on Tommy said:
This company-
He is talking about the Bell Telephone Company.
-is under the control of the railway commission, who have failed in their duty by not making some regulations to cover the disposal of this stock.
And immediately there arose a Liberal cabinet minister from the front benches of 1928, Mr. Cannon, who said:
I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman may say whatever he wishes so long as he observes the rules of the house, but under the rules he cannot criticize the Board of Railway Commissioners as he has been doing.
And then up rose that Gaspe salmon, Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, Speaker of the House of Commons, who said:
The Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record, and therefore may not be attacked except by way of impeachment. This has been decided twice by this house within my knowledge.
As I said previously, citation 251 of Beau-chesne, third edition, says that we cannot attack the Board of Railway Commissioners because the Speaker of the House of Commons as far back as 1928 ruled that the Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record, "and therefore may not be attacked except by way of impeachment". Well, if the Board of Railway Commissioners cannot be attacked because it is a court of record, do you realize that this subclause of clause 19 of this new bill will put the Canadian radio and television council or commission, or whatever you are going to call it, beyond the criticism of the House of Commons, beyond the criticism of the parliament of Canada? The Speaker or somebody in his place will stand up and say: "Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux in 1928 said that a court of record cannot be attacked in the House of Commons".
Look at the attack that Tommy Church made on the railway commission. He said:
It would be interesting to know what regulations the Board of Railway Commissioners have over the issue of stock by this company.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Later on he said:
This company is under the control of the railway commission, who have failed in their duty by not making some regulations to cover the disposal of this stock.
And then Mr. Cannon said that Tommy was attacking the board. If Tommy Church was forbidden by Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, the Speaker at that time, from making such remarks about the Board of Railway Commissioners, which the Speaker said was a court of record, we will not be able to stand up and ask about a single, solitary program of the C.B.C., because we will be told that it is a court of record under subclause 7 of clause 19 and that the council has all the powers, rights and privileges that are normally vested in a superior court of record.
The lawyers are asking why the word "superior" is in there. "Court of record", they tell me, is equal to a superior court. But for some reason or other we are going to make doubly certain that this council is enshrined in the law of the land and we are going to make them a superior court of record. I wonder whether that will make them superior to the Board of Railway Commissioners which we are told is a court of record. But bear in mind that this is going to be a superior court of record. Rodolphe Lemieux simply said that the Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record, but this council is to be exalted as a superior court of record. If we are going to enshrine the television authority in such a way that they can never be attacked I see no reason for having parliament. We can simply enshrine all our subsidiaries such as the C.B.C. and other crown corporations, and activities of government by making them a court of record and, as the hon. Rodolphe Lemieux said, we cannot attack them.
It is getting to the point, Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Commons, that the C.B.C. is getting to be the same as the Ark of the Covenant. You cannot even touch it. And as for criticizing it, well, the Speaker will make his ruling on the basis of Mr. Lemieux's statement.
I wish to tell the chairman and other members of the House of Commons that I initiated an inquiry this morning about the two previous occasions on which, as the Speaker, Mr. Rodolphe Lemieux had said, this matter was decided by the house. When one bears in mind that Beauchesne makes his flatfooted statement based simply on this ruling in May of 1928 it is evident that he did not think it necessary to refer to what Mr. Lemieux spoke
6358	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of as having been decided twice in the house within his knowledge.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The C.B.C. appears to be beyond our reach now. Is it really the wish of hon. members that we should enshrine this council so that it becomes a court of record whose officials may enter private property, take whatever documents or papers they wish to take as evidence and subpoena witnesses to appear before it? These people are being given the same status as a superior court and I for one can see no reason for putting them so far beyond the reach of the parliament of Canada that the only thing we shall be able to do in future is send money over to them whenever they ask for it. Remember, Mr. Chairman, it will not be possible to attack them in the House of Commons by making such a wild statement as Mr. Church made, the statement Mr. Cannon jumped on:
It would be Interesting to know what regulations the Board of Railway Commissioners have over the issue of stock by this company. I fail to see any regulations regarding the sale of this $75 million, or any regulations providing for subscription to this stock.
Mr. Cannon then rose to say that the hon. member "cannot criticize the Board of Railway Commissioners as he has been doing."
Clause 19 is absolutely rotten. First of all, the commission can amend a licence without holding a public hearing despite all the high-sounding verbiage about "a public hearing shall be held". The situation, in fact, is that a public hearing shall be held provided the executive committee is satisfied that it would in the public interest to hold such a hearing. But, of course, if the executive committee were to decide, as it might, 95 times out of 100 that it was not in the public interest to do so, the hearing would be held in camera. This clause makes it possible to move licences like the Barrie one into the Toronto area simply on the O.K. of a group of men meeting in private. I almost hesitate to refer to clause 22, because it has not yet reached, but it has a bearing on clause 19 and clause 17 and I would certainly like to hear some comments by members of parliament who are interested in this Barrie-Toronto situation which is not changed one iota as a result of this supposedly brand new radio and television policy for Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the hon. member for York-Humber has been somewhat irritating to the minister at various

DEBATES	February 5, 19S8
times and that she has not answered this particular inquiry, but I think some of us would like an assurance that under the guise of amending a licence the commission could not in fact so substantially alter it that it would really amount to the issuance of a new one without holding a public hearing. The executive committee is a small body and a quorum of that committee is expressed as being three full-time members of the commission.
Since this point has been raised, I am concerned about whether or not by amending a licence, by altering the place at which it may be used, the frequency, the output power and the channel, the action of the board might not in fact amount to the issuance of a new licence. Would it be possible for the executive committee to do this without holding a public hearing and, if so, can the minister give us any assurance that in fact this would not be done?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, I expect that the people we appoint to the new commission as full-time members will be first-rate people with some knowledge of the field. What the hon. member is suggesting is something rather underhanded; I do not think I should even dignify it by protesting that people who are appointed in good faith would not act in an underhand way.
It is entirely possible that for some reason which does not now come to my mind a public hearing would be dispensed with. I cannot fetter the commission by anything I say. I would imagine that in the ordinary course there would be a hearing. It would only be in rare instances that members of the board, none of them subject to partisan pressures, might decide that because of an error which had been made, or because of the very modest change which was asked for, a public hearing should not be held. I would remind hon. members that the whole purpose of appointing the commission is to increase public knowledge of these affairs, to enable the public to have more information than was available from the Board of Broadcast Governors, not less.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank the Secretary of State for having answered the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I asked the question, too. I do not know whether the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is a Liberal in good standing and thus entitled to an answer. But I should like to know whether applications for C.A.T.V. licences will be heard in public in future or whether the new board will simply
February 5, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6359
decide that it would not be in the public interest to hear these applications in public and deal with them as they wish in the privacy of their offices.
This is an important matter to the business community who up to now have had to be satisfied with hole in the corner treatment. They were sincerely pleased with the proposal to hold public hearings under the new council whenever new broadcasting licences were applied for, and I say "broadcasting licences" because, although C.A.T.V. does not really involve broadcasting, this is the definition adopted in the legislation before us. The C.A.T.V people, as they see things today, would like all these applications to be processed in public. Can the Secretary of State advise us whether this is going to happen or whether, in fact, applicants will have to be content with the same hole in the corner treatment as in the past?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is very clear under 19(l)(a) that public hearings shall be heard in connection with these licences. The hon. member can read; he has been reading to us with great expression.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank the minister for that answer in which she says that public hearings will be held in connection with C.A.T.V. applications.
I would now ask whether in view of citation 251 of Beauchesne parliament proposes that the commission should be a court of record, with the consequence that it may not be attacked except by way of impeachment. If it is to be given the same rights as those vested in a superior court of record, will we be hamstrung in this chamber with regard to comments which may be made concerning this crown organization also and the manner in which it is spending public funds?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have never seen a hamstrung in this chamber.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not like merely to echo the hon. member for York-Humber, but having accepted the assurance of the minister that in effect no commission would dare do anything underhanded or against the public interest, first, because the standing of the members would be such that they would not try it and, second, on account of the fact that they would not get away with it, I assume that if the commission makes an unpopular decision the matter will be raised in the House of Commons. I would like the minister to assure me
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that this clause, giving the commission the rights and privileges vested in a superior court of record, does not exempt the commission from having a question about it raised in the house.
I saw the particular reference mentioned by the hon. member for York-Humber with respect to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It stated that that board was a court of record and therefore could not be attacked. From examining this clause it seems to me it does not make the new commission a court of record but merely gives it the same rights and privileges as a court of record.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not a law officer of the crown but I agree with the hon. member's interpretation.


Mr. Pritiie:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is another important difference. The ordinary courts do not report to parliament, or at least their reports are not debated, but the new commission will report to parliament annually. Its report can be debated, and of course its budget will have to be voted by parliament. It does not seem to be totally exempt from parliamentary scrutiny.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 22-Directions of the Governor in Council.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the hon. minister concerning clause 22(l)(a) which states:
(1) No broadcasting licence shall be issued, amended or renewed pursuant to this Part (a) in contravention of any direction to the Commission by the Governor in Council under the authority of this Act-
I should like to ask the hon. minister whether the provisions stated in clause 2 are included in "the directions given to the commission by the governor in council under the authority of this act".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid I cannot answer because the interpretation was so confused that I do not know what the hon. member was asking.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, clause 22(l)(a) states the following:
(1) No broadcasting licence shall be issued, amended or renewed pursuant to this Part (a) in contravention of any direction to the Commission under the authority of this Act-
February 5, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I wonder whether the provisions of clause 22 are part of the instructions given to the commission by the governor in council.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, clause 2, that is, paragraph 2-


Gilles Grégoire: Clause 2 of the bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If I understand correctly, clause 2 is not intended to be the kind of direction issued by the governor in council referred to in clause 22. Clause 2 is a part of this bill to which parliament has agreed. Clause 22 deals with directions that may be made from time to time by order in council, which of course will have to be published in due course and which will deal with matters referred to in paragraphs (a) (i), (ii) and (iii).


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Chairman, I
should like to put a direct question to the hon. Secretary of State.
When issuing a licence can the Canadian radio-television commission ignore clause 2(b) where it is stipulated:
the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
Notwithstanding that statement which parliament has accepted, can the commission ignore it and issue licences to corporations which are not in fact controlled by Canadian citizens?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under this clause the governor in council will have to give directions and set out its policy with respect to such ownership. Clause 2 uses the word "should," not "shall" or "must" or "only Canadians may own." We went into this matter at some length when we were discussing that particular part of the bill. The policy to be established by the government shall be set out in a direction by order in council to the new commission, and it will have to say whether or not it is to be 70 per cent Canadian ownership, 66 per cent, 60 per cent, 55 per cent or 50 per cent, according to whatever the government of the day may make its policy.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one last question?
Does the hon. Secretary of State or the governor in council intend to instruct the Canadian radio-television commission to see


to it that television stations are really controlled by Canadians and Canadian corporations? Will retroactive measures be taken concerning stations which are not effectively controlled by Canadians?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Certainly the Secretary of State will be advising the governor in council as to the details of the policy, and since it is parliament's will that there should be effective Canadian ownership and control that is what will govern the instructions which are given. There is no question of retroactivity because each broadcasting enterprise, it is understood, will have to get a new licence. It is on application for renewal of a licence that the direction by cabinet to the new commission will take effect.


Gilles Grégoire: One last question, Mr. Chairman.
Does the hon. Secretary of State mean to say that every station should have a new power as soon as the new act comes into force? Is that it? Did I understand correctly?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, not all at once. All of the licences were extended. I do not know the last date exactly, but they were extended once or twice during the last few years until the new act came into effect. But when each licence has expired the operators will have to make a new application to the commission. I do not mean that the day after this bill receives royal assent all the licences will lapse.


Gilles Grégoire: Will licences be renewed according to the rules and regulations set out under the new act? Will the new act provide for public hearings for the renewal of licences?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would expect so, and it will be covered by clause 19(2).


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, there is a question I would like to ask the Secretary of State in connection with clause 22. Her references to me make me wonder whether I will be able to use my credentials at the forthcoming leadership convention, which give me a vote for a new leader. I would not want the boys to be influenced by one whom the Secretary of State does not like.
February 5. 1968	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
With regard to clause 22, most members of the committee have before them Bill C-163 with the black-face type reading, "Reprinted as amended and reported by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts". I have in my right hand a copy of Bill C-163 as originally introduced in the house and which received first reading on October 17, 1967. One of the changes that has been made by the broadcasting committee and incorporated in the bill that we now have is that a new section has been added to subclause (lKaKiii) of clause 22. This subclause as it appeared in the original bill which was given first reading read as follows:
No broadcasting licence shall be issued, amended or renewed pursuant to this Part (a) in contravention of any direction to the Commission issued by the Governor in Council under the authority of this Act respecting...
(iii) the classes of applicants to whom broadcasting licences may not be issued or to whom amendments or renewals thereof may not be granted;
That subclause as brought forward on first reading seemed to cover the ground. But we have this part added to subclause (l)CaKiii) of clause 22:
and any such class may, notwithstanding section 2, be limited so as not to preclude the amendment or renewal of a broadcasting licence that is outstanding at the time this Act comes into force;
In the copy of the bill which should be before you those words are underlined in black. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what outstanding broadcasting licences there are at the moment which are being protected by this addition to the bill as brought in for first reading? It is evident that somebody was to be excluded from coming under the board's authority in the original bill which received first reading, but now an exemption is being granted which reads:
. ana any such class may, notwithstanding section 2, be limited so as not to preclude the amendment or renewal of a broadcasting licence that is outstanding at the time this Act comes into force;
What class of people is this provision being made for?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have just been checking. It is not our recollection that this has reference to any specific licence holder but rather that the committee felt that without the addition of these words there would be an immediate chop-off in respect of those who held licences but perhaps did not qualify under the new legislation. It was felt that this would be an unfair thing to have happen,
DEBATES	6361
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that is, where large investments had been made that they be put out of business without any warning. It was without any specific case in mind, to my recollection, that the committee decided that the cabinet should have an opportunity to review these under the new legislation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for her very civil answer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23-Setting aside or reference back to Council.
Mr. Sianbury:: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this clause be stood because I wished to raise a question concerning the adequacy of subclause 2 of clause 23. It appears to me that this subclause would restrict the opportunity for a reference back to the council to a situation where the council had failed to consider a particular matter at all. There would be no opportunity for reference back in a situation where a matter had been touched upon by the council but had been given no weight or insufficient weight in the estimation of the governor in council. It seems to me that if the provision for a reference back has any merit at all it would be quite inadequate to limit that opportunity to a situation where a matter was completely neglected by the council. In a case where the council had considered the matter only in passing and had not given it the weight of consideration which it deserved it would seem that such a reference would be necessary. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause (2) of clause 23 be amended by adding thereto the words:
"or to consider adequately"

That subclause (2) of clause 23 be amended by adding thereto the words:
"or to consider adequately"


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee in favour of the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, subclause 4 of clause 23 reads as follows:
The issue, amendment or renewal by the Council of any broadcasting licence that has been referred back to the Council pursuant to subsection (1) and confirmed pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) may be set aside by order of the Governor in Council made within sixty days after such confirmation.
6362	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I should like to refer to this provision because in my previous references to the Bar-rie-Toronto situation, which could be duplicated elsewhere in Canada, I emphasized as we have moved from clause to clause that it will be possible to change-the word "amend" is used-a licence already in the hands of a licensee in private without any public hearing under clauses 17 and 19. At the time of the uproar over the Barrie T.V. application to have its broadcasting station moved there was a big fuss and feathers about this matter being referred back to the Board of Broadcast Governors. Then the Board of Broadcast Governors reconsidered the matter. You will remember that a new appointment was made to the board. This appointment was made on the day of the vote. Of course, it was just on the basis of straight Canadian common sense that they made their recommendation in respect of the Barrie situation. This went back to the Minister of Transport and because of the uproar which arose no action was taken.
I should like to bring to the attention of the chairman and members of the committee that under this new clause, if the report from the new council should not meet the desires of the cabinet we have this provision:
The issue, amendment or renewal by the Council of any broadcasting licence that has been referred back to the Council pursuant to subsection (1) and confirmed pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) may be set aside by order of the Governor in Council made within sixty days after such confirmation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We presume that after it has been set aside the governor in council-we do not want to say the cabinet, of course, because the governor in council sounds much more important-can ask this new radio and television council to reconsider this application for a television licence. Then we find these words:
The issue, amendment or renewal by the Council of any broadcasting licence that has been referred back to the Council pursuant to subsection (1) and confirmed pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection (3) may be set aside by order of the Governor in Council made within sixty days after such confirmation.
If the new council does not give the answer the governor in council wants the application can again be set aside as long as it is done within 60 days, to be sent back again for reconsideration. Perhaps there might even be more appointments made to the board, but finally when the desired decision has been made the application will not be set aside. What kind of control is this over broadcasting

DEBATES	February 5, 1968
and television? We are trying to make out that this board is to be supreme. It will be supreme to the point that it can make a decision in private or a hole in the corner decision without a public hearing if it decides it is not in the public interest to hold such a hearing. In any event, if the governor in council does not like such a decision made in private he may set it aside within 60 days. This can be done if the council does not want to conform, so you may still have political control so far as the issuance of broadcasting and T.V. licences is concerned. I just want to make this situation clear because there is no use asking the cabinet to change it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: before us. They will then realize how this clause came about and what it is designed to cure.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 24, 26 and 28 agreed to.
On clause 29-Punishment.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to propose an amendment which I understand is acceptable to the minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to see it first.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I discussed it with the hon. lady the other day. I should like to move:
That subclause (1) of clause 29 be amended by deleting all the words after "exceeding" in line eight on page 16 and substituting the words "twenty-five thousand dollars for the first offence and not exceeding fifty thousand dollars for each subsequent offence."


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to oppose this amendment but I think it would be useful if the minister put on record why the amount of $100,000 was included in the bill in the first place. I know a great many people objected to this and the minister did give a reason for this sum being chosen when she was before the committee. Would she do so again now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. I quoted some figures we had which indicated that by moving the clock a station that wanted to make more income, or wanted to be a little sharp so far as the regulations were concerned, could make something in the order of $10,000 a week by using just one extra minute of prime time to shave the regulations.
Large amounts can be made in this way and in order to prohibit this practice we felt that very large penalties should be authorized. Indeed, I was handed a page from Time Canada, for January 26, 1968, having regard to sportscasting. On page 51 of that issue appears a discussion about C.B.S. coverage of the superbowl game and N.B.C. coverage of another bowl game. They refer to the C.B.S. coverage compared with the N.B.C. coverage and point out that one commercial during the C.B.S. superbowl coverage ran right through a kickoff. That is not the kind of thing people like to see. This article suggests that commercials on the superbowl telecast sold for an unprecedented $150,000 per minute. It is quite clear that if this kind of money can be made as a result of these small aberrations from time they can only be impeded by very substantial fines.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
This clause makes it known that parliament intends there should not be any breach of the regulations in this regard. It is my information that as yet our Canadian networks do not have hourly rates for advertising comparable with those of the United States networks. It seems that by comparison with fines existing in other public statutes $25,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences would be ample, even in respect of those stations which have a licence to print money, to dissuade them from breaking or bending the regulations.


David Orlikow: I have news for the Secretary of State. I have seen commercials during football coverage in Canada which ran while the game was in progress, so the United States networks are not the only offenders. I am not going to vote against the amendment as I cannot envisage any Canadian court assessing a fine of $100,000. I am not very hopeful that any Canadian court will assess a fine of $25,000 or $50,000. In any event the amendment would indicate that fines would not exceed these amounts. I am wondering whether there is any way to prevent fines of $50 or $100 being assessed. This is the kind of fine which magistrates in various parts of the country have assessed in respect of pretty serious cases. For instance, they sometimes impose a $500 fine on a driver who has had too much to drink and has caused an accident killing someone. Would it be possible to put a minimum fine in this clause so that the courts would know we take this matter seriously and do not want imposed, when there is a violation of the regulations, the kind of fine which might lead stations to say: It is good business to break the law, take in the kind of money the Secretary of State has talked about and pay only a very minimal fine?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would say two things in this connection, Mr. Chairman. First, the law officers indicate to us that this is the language currently in use in most statutes, because minimums become maximums. If you put in "not less than $100", that is what attracts the magistrate's eye all too often and that is the fine he imposes.
However, something came to my notice about which I told the committee. A very reputable broadcaster in Canada came to see me and confessed that he was a criminal to the extent of about 25 breaches of the act. He had suffered penalties about 25 different times. I was shocked to discover this. These
6364	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting breaches were committed because of what is called the clock hour and the Board of Broadcast Governors checking on how many minutes of commercial time there were within a clock hour. Sometimes he had less in one hour and more in another. He had paid these penalties. They were small penalties, I think in the nature of $10 or $25. It is quite surprising to me that this would happen 25 times, but what is really astonishing to me is that anyone would take him to court for having committed breaches of the law which they were satisfied were committed inadvertently. It seems to me that laws are not in existence to be prosecuted in a ruthless, merciless manner when, as sometimes happens, there has in error been a breach of the law.
Without anything else, to make the provision "not exceeding $25,000" does give the magistrate trying the case some idea of the gravity of the offence, but if there is someone before him who has had one of these clock hour difficulties and should pay a fine of only $10 the magistrate can impose a fine of only $10. I should think there would not be too many broadcasters who would be able to come into the office of the Secretary of State in future and say: I have had 25 $25,000 fines, or one $25,000 and 24 $50,000 fines, at least not until broadcasting is in a somewhat healthier state in Canada.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 29 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, we have just carried clause 29. I voted for the amendment to the clause, but the record will show that I asked that clause 28 be stood and was on my feet when you called clause 29. However, you recognized the hon. member for Halifax who wanted to speak to clause 29.
With regard to clause 28, which you have stated has carried, frankly clause 28 should be stood for a while, maybe a couple of hours, while it is rewritten because there are provisions in it that cannot be enforced. This matter was mentioned in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. Clause 28 reads:
No broadcaster shall broadcast-

DEBATES	February 5, 1958
Those broadcasters are in Canada and subject to Canadian law. The clause goes on to say:
-and no licensee-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. When the Chair called for the vote on clause 28 it did not do so with any haste. Certainly nobody objected when the Chair said "Carried" and the clause was carried at that time. Therefore clause 28 has been carried by the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I do not wish to get into an argument with the Chair but I ask the Secretary of State, how are you going to enforce these words:
No broadcaster shall broadcast, and no licensee of a broadcasting receiving undertaking shall receive a broadcast of a program, advertisement or announcement of a partisan character... on the day of any such referendum or election or on the one day immediately preceding-
How will that provision be enforced if the program is being picked up from American stations which are not under Canadian control? They are not broadcasting; they are only receiving. They have no control over what they are going to receive. I mean it, sir, that to have this-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but clause 28 has been carried. We are now dealing with clause 29 as amended. Shall clause 29 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall clause 31 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall clause 33 carry?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman-


Robert William Prittie: On clause-


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


Robert William Prittie: I wanted to speak to clause 31, Mr. Chairman. I wonder to which clause the hon. member wishes to speak.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond on clause 31.
On clause 31-Report to parliament.


Robert William Prittie: I have no amendment, Mr. Chairman, but this is the clause which
February 5, 1968

requires the council to submit each year a report which is to be tabled in parliament. I would hope the practice would be that this report of the broadcasting commission, as well as the report of the C.B.C., would be referred each year to the standing committee on broadcasting. We have heard a great deal about parliamentary control over these matters. I think it would be very useful if that practice were regularly followed.
There is nothing in the clause requiring that to be done. I appreciate that it might be difficult to write such a provision into the legislation but I would certainly hope the report of this authority would go to the committee each year and that the members of the authority could be called before the committee each year to answer questions.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 31 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 33-Definitions.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks to make in connection with this clause. Perhaps I am not entirely in order in referring to clause 33 but I am at a loss to know precisely where to raise the point I have in mind. Hon. members will note that this clause is the beginning of part III of the bill under the general heading "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation."
This raises a problem that was discussed at some length in the committee and outside. I refer to the possibility of changing the name of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to words common to both the two official languages of this country. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field. However, I remember the debate that was carried on at the time of changing the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. I think that change has worked out very well for this country. It has created a tremendous image for our air transportation system across the world. Air Canada is now very much in the minds of people.
I was hoping that something of a similar nature could be introduced at this time so far as "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" is concerned. I am sure that hon. members are aware of the fact that the French equivalent of "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" is "Societe Radio-Canada" and it is known generally throughout Canada, particularly to those who watch or listen to the French section of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, simply "Radio-Canada".
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I should like to propose an amendment in this connection. Before doing so I might say that if someone wants to move a subamendment and change it further I would have no particular objection. I will read the proposed amendment so that hon. members may more easily follow what I am about to say. I move:
That Bill C-163 be amended as follows:
That in part III the name "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" be changed to "Radio-Television Canada".
That wherever the name "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" appears in the said bill, it be changed to "Radio-Television Canada".
I draw to the attention of hon. members that "Radio-Television Canada" would be acceptable and identical in both languages. There are some purists who would point out, I think with a degree of logic, that in a sense radio does include television. I would have no particular objection if, in order to have this amendment accepted, the word "television" were eliminated and we simply referred to the corporation as Radio Canada in English and in French. However, if we include the word "television" we draw to the attention of the public that this public service includes television as well as radio.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I bring this amendment before the committee for discussion. I point out once again that Radio-Television Canada in English and Raff-Television Canada in French are precisely the same thing. This would simplify tremendously the identity of the corporation. It would facilitate advertising, printing and activities in other fields connected with broadcasting just as the title "Air Canada" has simplified the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will carry with the word "television" included. At the same time, I have no particular objection to the elimination of the word television", leaving the designation Radio-Canada.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I would not be in favour of this amendment and I think I should tell you why. I am certainly no franco-phobe, as most members know. I feel there are several reasons why we should not make this change. First of all, the matter should have been considered in committee and reported upon before we make a change of this type. I do not quite know how to put this. Whatever senses I have as a politician tell me that this would not be a wise move to make at the time. We should leave F.ngiicb speaking Canada some of its traditions and
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the name, "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation", should remain.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In so far as the proposal is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I feel there has been insufficient public as well as private discussion to warrant a major change from the name "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" in English and "Radio-Canada" in French. These names are fairly easy to handle and there is no misunderstanding of what is meant. "Radio-Canada" is brief and appears to be acceptable. "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" is certainly well known. Fundamentally, I believe that the suggested change has been thrown at the committee perhaps too quickly. I understand there was some discussion in a general way in the standing committee but no decision was made. I feel the introduction of the amendment at this time would not be expedient.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could add an additional word. First of all, I should like to say that I feel these changes we make from time to time are admirable. I refer to those attempts we make to see that the public designations used for our various corporations are compatible in both languages so they are easily understood either through the use of initials or the actual words. However, I believe we should not forget that we are all extremely sensitive today about creating as much understanding, as much communication, between our two major language groups as we can. I believe we may be bending too far backwards in these attempts. It strikes me that, while we are very anxious that we shall sufficiently accommodate each other, we should not forget the advantages we have in having two different language groups. It is because of that I feel we want to retain some of the unique flavour that situation creates.
There is a certain sense of diversification now for French speaking Canadians when they talk about Radio-Canada and for English speaking Canadians when they talk about the C.B.C. I think that as more and more Canadians, hopefully, will have the facility to communicate in both of our major languages it will become more important that we be able to refer easily to what is happening on Radio-Canada or what is happening on the C.B.C. There may be some advantage, therefore, in retaining some distinction for Canadians between these two parts of our national communications system. We might be creating more confusion in future years as people wish

February 5, 1968
to have made available to them, in the terms of the bill, full communications services in both networks. I can see that we may be creating some confusion in the future if we simply designate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the new term Radio-Television Canada. On the other hand, if we retain these traditional terms I think we will make it easier for Canadians to recognize the unique flavour embodied in what is a totally Canadian experience.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have listened to the short but very impressive contributions made by the hon. member from the New Democratic party and the expert on broadcasting fom Prince. I feel that the points which have been raised are very important, though perhaps they are less impressive for me since I have lived so long in the French milieu. Perhaps we are not ready for this type of amendment, so in order to expedite the passage of the biU and not introduce a new element of controversy at this late stage, at the same time recognizing that there was no preparation for this type of amendment, I request permission to withdraw it.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee give the hon. member permission to withdraw the amendment?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I hoped to get some indication from the minister as to her feelings about this amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not want to slow down the passage of the bill either. I have a number of names for the C.B.C., but it is the people's network and I would be happy with whatever the committee wants to call it.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The
amendment is dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
On clause 36-Management vested in president.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 36 was stood at my request in order that I might bring forward a short amendment. It will be followed by an amendment to clause 38. Clause 36 deals very briefly with the responsibilities of the president of the corporation and clause 38 deals with the responsibilities of the executive vice president. It has always been the intent of the government that the new legislation should make the clearest possible distinction between

February 5, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6367
the responsibilities of the two offices. We have been having a number of discussions since the meetings of the standing committee and it appears that some of the words in clause 36 are redundant. They may lead to ambiguity. I do not want any uncertainty about the fact that the president is the chief executive officer. Therefore I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to move an amendment.


Mr. Robichaud:: I move:
That paragraph (1) of clause 36 be amended by deleting the words "has supervision over and direction of the work and staff of the corporation and the president."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the effect of that amendment will be that the clause will simply state that the president is the chief executive officer of the corporation and shall preside at meetings of the corporation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. May I put the amendment first.

It is moved by Mr. Robichaud:
That paragraph (1) of clause 36 be amended by deleting the words "has supervision over and direction of the work and staff of the corporation and the president."


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I assume that under the second amendment this particular portion of the duties will devolve upon the vice president. Am I correct in that assumption?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendment in regard to the vice president makes him responsible for his present duties plus such other duties as the president may lay upon his shoulders. That further phrase is added to the bill. I should like to have that amendment moved, though I do not think I can properly ask for that now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask whether we could have both amendments before us; that would make it much easier.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee give leave to have the amendment moved?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, might the
amendment be read rather than put? That will not put us in a bind on the motion.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: That was the suggestion of the Chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I will just read the proposed amendment; I am not yet moving it. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries will move an amendment to clause 38 (1) in order to add the words "and for such other duties as the president may assign to him from time to time". This will make it clear that the president is not limited in his responsibilities and that any one of those duties may be passed on to the executive vice president in regard to anything he might undertake both to his advantage and to the advantage of the corporation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. lady equating the words "supervision over and direction of", the words she intends to delete in clause 36 (1), with the words "the management of broadcasting operations" to be found in clause 38 (1)? Do the law officers of the crown feel that the words that are going to be deleted in clause 36 (1) are taken care of in clause: 38 (D?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the law officers have indicated that this point is covered by the words "chief executive officer". They were, of course, consulted when this amendment was being drawn.


Robert William Prittie: I have one comment on this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The idea of the statutory appointment of an executive vice president seems a little odd. The clause provides that he shall be appointed on the recommendation of the president and with the approval of the governor in council. So presumably he is a person in whom the president will have confidence and they will work together, as they should.
I might have had an answer to this question previsouly but I am not sure. What is the purpose of mentioning the executive vice president in the statute? If that phrase were not in the bill presumably the directors of the corporation would determine what subordinate officers the president needed and would make provision for their appointment. Why is an executive vice president provided for by statute?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, generally speaking, when you divide responsibilities legislation does provide for a chief officer and
6368	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting also for one who is given special direction. I think the situation was much clearer when in draft form they were called the chairman and the general manager. The change of the title to executive vice-president makes the situation look somewhat odd under the circumstances, but his role is still the same. It will he recalled that provision for a vice president was retained because in the structure of the C.B.C. there are a number of vice presidents. It was felt that that title was needed because of the close interchange there is with United States corporations where vice presidents are so much a part of the corporate terminology.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points to raise on this question. It seems to me that in trying to clear up some of the difficulties which previously existed in the operation of the corporation we may have created others, partly, I think, because we have had to use the term "executive vice president". I for one was never very enthusiastic about the way in which the upper hierarchy of the C.B.C. was structured. It seems to me that apart from other things this has created part of the problem.
Some of the difficulties have been relieved by separating some functions into these two distinct offices of president and executive vice president, but I think we are still leaving ourselves open to considerable problems. In spite of the fact that it may make some difference in status so far as United States broadcasting corporations are concerned, I really wonder at the validity of perpetuating this kind of terminology as against the very clearcut roles of president and general manager. I do not remember receiving a really satisfactory answer to this problem in committee and neither have I this afternoon from the minister.
Second, I should like some assurance from the minister about the danger that might arise if, for instance, the president found that he would have to resign before the end of his term. The executive vice president would take over his duties, but there might be an undue delay in the appointment of a new president.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Never.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope the Hansard reporter picked that up because I think this is critical. We did seem to take a long time to respond when Mr. Ouimet submitted his resignation; I believe well over one year elapsed. I think the fact that there was such a long period did a great deal to weaken the
IMiss LaMarsh.]
DEBATES	February 5, 1968
whole upper management structure of the C.B.C. The minister has said that this will never happen again, that there will be no undue delay, and I do thank her for that assurance.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I may not be here to make sure of that though.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is true; the minister may not be able to assure us of that.
The other difficulty I see with the fuzziness that exists in trying clearly to delineate the functions of these two officers disturbs me, and I should like to see a clearcut use of terms such as "president" and "general manager". With regard to the recent appointments I think that even in the minds of the public there is still not a very clearcut idea of what are the functions of Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard. That is unfortunate for them, I think, and it may be unfortunate in working out the top management structure of the C.B.C.
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) agreed to.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 36 as amended carry?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Chairman, no provision is made in clause 36 for the president of the corporation to be full time. I believe that somewhere in the bill there is provision for the chairman of the Canadian radio-television commission to be full time. There is no such provision for the executive vice president of the corporation, but the corporation is to set the terms of his employment, and I think we can entrust that decision to the corporation. It is incumbent on parliament to decide whether the president of the corporation shall be a full time president. We have not done so in this bill and I think that that oversight should be remedied. I move:
That clause 36 be amended by inserting therein the following as subclause (2) and renumbering the present subclause (2) as subclause (3):
"The president shall devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this part."
Amendment (Mr. Stanbury) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 37 has already been carried.
February 5, 1968	COMMONS
On clause 38-"Executive vice president".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment to clause 38:
That paragraph (1) of clause 38 be amended by adding the words "and for such other duties as the President may assign to him from time to time".
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 39-Objects and powers.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this clause was designed to permit the C.B.C., among other things, to act as agent for any minister of the crown with respect to such broadcasting service as the governor in council may direct. The specific instance which was kept in mind was the international service of the C.B.C. Since the bill defines the objects of the C.B.C. in clauses 2(g) and 2(h), it was considered that for greater certainty it would be advisable to add at the end of the subclause under discussion the words "including the provision of an international service". Clause 39(2) would then read as follows:
The Corporation may, within the conditions of any licence or licences issued to it by the Council and subject to any applicable regulations of the Council, act as agent for or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown or as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or of any province in respect of any broadcasting operations that it may be directed by the Governor in Council to carry out, including the provision of an international service.
I ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to move that amendment with respect to this clause.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Robert William Prittie: This is agreeable, Mr. Chairman. I had prepared an additional subclause which would have served the same purpose as the amendment. What the minister suggests will serve the purpose pretty well. This matter becomes more important now in view of the change which was made recently in the financing of the international service.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 39 as amended carry?
DEBATES	6369
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would have
something to say about clause 39(l)(m) which is one of those I have particularly at heart. This clause stipulates that the corporation has power to:
-subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe, and the Secretary of State will agree, that the C.B.C. is given unlimited powers. The C.B.C. is authorized to become co-owner, shareholder or director of private companies which will become its subsidiaries and from which it will derive the same profits as private enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, clause 39(l)(g) states that the corporation has power to:
-publish and distribute, whether for a consideration or otherwise, such audio-visual material, papers, periodicals and other publications which may seem conducive to the purposes of the Corporation.
One of the purposes of the corporation is to make its programs known, thus the C.B.C. can advertise in the newspapers, and we see some of its advertisements regularly in La Presse, Le Devoir, Le Journal de Montreal, to speak only of French newspapers which I know and in which I see C.B.C. advertisements every day.
Now, what would prevent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under clause 39(l)(m)-in order to achieve the purpose referred to in paragraph (l)(g) of the same clause-from buying those newspapers?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
What would keep the C.B.C. from buying newspapers such as La Presse, Le Soleil, Le Droit, Le journal de Montreal, in short, any paper in which it now puts out advertisements, since clause 39 (1) (m) stipulates that it can:
-subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that, is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
Moreover, subclause (1) (g) of the same clause allows the C.B.C. to:
-publish and distribute, whether for a consideration or otherwise, such audio-visual material, papers, periodicals and other literary matter as may seem conducive to the purposes of the Corporation;
February 5, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting So, Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C., with the $150 million it gets this year from the government, for very little-it must be recognized that this is just "peanuts"-can buy the newspaper La Presse. It would be easy for the C.B.C. to buy Le Soleil in Quebec or Le journal de Montreal, one after the other, since clause 39 (1) (m) says specifically that the corporation may: -subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
And not only newspapers, Mr. Chairman. What is there to keep the C.B.C., under this provision, from buying out competitive stations, under the pretext that this would be incidental or conducive to the attainment of its objectives. For instance, at the present time, and this has happened many times before, the C.B.C., with its cameras, is retransmitting to the CTV network or private radio stations, programs on the federal-provincial conference.
Then, what could stop the C.B.C. from saying: We shall buy that because it is "incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the corporation", as provided in that clause?
What could prevent the C.B.C. from buying channel 10 in Montreal? What could prevent the C.B.C. from buying all the radio stations here and there, either in Roberval, Dolbeau or in Alma? The C.B.C. only has to say that under clause 39 (1) (m), it can:
-acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
Under that clause, the corporation can decide to buy all the small private radio stations anywhere, as well as private television stations. It can take over television stations and newspapers.
In the United States-and it is the hon. member for York-Humber who told me about it the other day-the large television systems are owners of baseball, football and basketball clubs. Now, what could prevent the C.B.C. from saying: "We broadcast two hockey games every week, the Forum has become for us a huge television studio where we have set up our cameras and where we produce a three-hour program each week. As we have to pay dues to the Montreal Forum and to the hockey club "Les Canadiens" of Montreal, we 
could as well take advantage of clause 39(l)(m) under which we are allowed:
-to acquire hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company and corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
Then, 45, 48, 50 or 60 per cent of the shares in the Forum as well as in the hockey club "Les Canadiens" of Montreal would be purchased. Then, Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. would be acting like the CBS and the NBC in the United States when they became owners of football, baseball or basketball clubs.
Mr. Chairman, the situation is almost identical. At that point, it could as well buy all the hockey clubs in Canada. The C.B.C. is the only large system in Canada which would have the means to do so. In the United States, at least, there are several large networks, such as NBC, CBS or ABC, which share all this. In Canada, however, there is only one large network which has the means to buy all or the majority of the shares in that sort of organization.
Clause 9(l)(m) did not exist in the old act, but it is to be added today. Once the C.B.C. acquires the right to own shares in private companies such as other radio or television stations, or in large newspapers such as La Presse or Le Soleil in Quebec, or buy shares in hockey clubs under the pretext that this is incidental to the purpose of the C.B.C., which wants to show the Canadian public the best in sports, or in forums, arenas or coliseums which are now simply huge television studios, what will prevent the corporation from going further and saying: We are buying shares in such a company that produces films.
What will prevent the C.B.C. from reasoning in this way: We show on the air 15 or 20 full-length features; therefore, why not buy Warner Brothers, MGM or Paramount Pictures or else why not buy stocks in those companies? It is the government that is paying behind the C.B.C. and under clause 39 (1) (m) the corporation is granted that privilege and that power.
What would prevent the C.B.C.-it might seem funny in the case of MGM, Warner Brothers or Paramount Pictures-to take over small companies that produce television films in Montreal or Toronto?
It is a known fact, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of small companies which are producing films and commercials for television only. What would prevent the
February 5, 1968

C.B.C. from taking over those small companies, those small owners who, not being able to count on the patronage of the C.B.C., would fall through or would be forced to sell their business at a ridiculously low price?
There are companies in Montreal which are producing just enough to subsist. The film industry is slowly starting to develop in Canada, and those small companies greatly rely on the C.B.C. But the C.B.C. would come along and take over a few of these, giving them all its patronage, driving the others to bankruptcy.
Moreover, if the C.B.C. decided to buy one of these film producing companies and become its main customer, that would mean entering into competition with another crown corporation, that is the National Film Board.
Under the bill, the C.B.C. is to be allowed
-to acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
Then, how many individuals could set up and promote such a company, rather than any other, because they hold shares in the said company. Furthermore, some farsighted employees-and that could easily occur -would acquire shares in these private companies, at the same time as the C.B.C., thus creating a danger of fraud.
Mr. Chairman, I think that clause 39 (1) (m) opens many avenues to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which will enable it to compete unfairly with many private businesses existing at the present time, which contribute their share of profit and which pay taxes out of that share of profit. The corporation will thus infiltrate into private companies, with the people's money, and it will compete unfairly in such a way that it is the government which will compete with private enterprise.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In fact, it is the taxpayers who will make up the deficits of the government agencies.
Mr. Chairman, before carrying on discussion of paragraph (n) it would be useful, I think, to hear from the hon. Secretary of State about the intentions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with regard to that paragraph. It would be well for the hon. Secretary of State to tell us what field the C.B.C. wants to embark on, under this provision. Have projects been made?
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I think that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bechard) will answer the question for the hon. Secretary of State. Could we, at least, have an idea of the purpose to be achieved by that paragraph?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has no purpose other than that referred to in this legislation and I think that we have discussed long enough the objectives and so on of the C.B.C.
If the hon. member will refer to paragraph (m) and (n) of subclause (1) of clause 39 of the present legislation, this is what he will find:
(m)	acquire broadcasting undertakings either by leave or by purchase subject to the approval of the governor in council; and
(n)	do such other things as the Corporation deems incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the objects or the exercise of any of the powers of the Corporation.
Therefore, the paragraph (m) and (n) which are the subjects of the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe are simply intended not to control or to crush private television stations which, as was said by the hon. member, are simply starting in business and do not make as much money as they might wish, contrary to the explanations and statements made by some hon. members of the opposition to the effect that television stations make a lot of money, but to better attain the objects of the corporation.
Nevertheless, as regards acquiring private stations, nothing will be done without the approval of the governor in council. Moreover, amounts of money paid by the corporation are voted by the parliament, as the hon. member knows. In fact, the corporation shall submit its yearly budget to the approval of parliament and if the hon. member has special cases to point out, we could obviously see the evil intentions he seemingly allows to linger as regards the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But, in any event, the corporation's powers are established under paragraphs (m) and (n).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for his explanations. However, it is the old act he was reading.
In the old act, which remains in force till the new act is passed, the section he has been reading to us differs from clause 39(l)(n) of
6372	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the new bill in that it is not mentioned that the C.B.C. can:
-acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the object of the Corporation."
Under the terms of the new bill, not only can the C.B.C. "acquire" shares, but it also "hold and dispose" of shares-and this was not in the old act. Thus the C.B.C. can become the co-owner of a private enterprise jointly with other individuals. Sometimes this can be twice as interesting. And it was not in the old act.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I believe section 29 (m) of the former legislation provides the following:
-acquire broadcasting stations either by lease or, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, by purchase; and
I believe it can buy shares, movables and immovables. I believe this is sufficiently understood by the word "purchase". Paragraph (m) of the new legislation derives from the interpretation of that section.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, under the new clause, the corporation may acquire undertakings "either by lease or by purchase," but it also mentions that the C.B.C. may "acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock." This does not mean the purchase of a company, but it may very well mean holding 40, 50, 60 per cent of the shares of a company, whereas under the former act, the C.B.C. could buy a existing station. Now we are told that the corporation can become a co-owner. In addition, the former act mentioned "broadcasting stations," whereas the new legislation does not mention anything at all. Provision is merely made for the corporation to:
(m) ... acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
The new legislation goes much further than the former act, because it is not restricted to "broadcasting stations", but includes even newspapers and film companies. And, as I mentioned earlier, the corporation could become the owner of a hockey or baseball team as happened in the United States.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, there will be only purchases capable of assisting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as stated

DEBATES	February 5, 1968
in the legislation, in the attainment of its purpose.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe is raising a storm about very little. I do not think there is any danger to the Montreal Canadiens, La Presse, Warner Brothers or any private enterprise in this country as a result of clause 39 (1) (m). As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, this provision has been in the existing act for many years. I have looked at the act which governs the B.B.C. in the United Kingdom and it has a similar section. I would imagine that whatever act governs the O.R.T.F. in France also has a similar provision.
There are many safeguards. One is that the corporation has to satisfy the cabinet that it must spend money for certain purposes. Somehow I do not see the cabinet approving the purchase of Montreal Canadiens, even if they were for sale, or the Toronto Maple Leafs, and the cabinet is not likely to approve the purchase of any newspaper in this country and get away with it. I think this provision is in its right place. The corporation does need approval to do certain ancillary things. This provision has been in the law for many years and no one has managed to build a empire because of it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State has just indicated to me that the contents of the new legislation is different from the old one.
The old legislation, as mentioned by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State when he read it, allowed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to purchase "broadcasting stations". However, under the new legislation, the C.B.C. has the power to:
[DOT]-acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorize to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Corporation;
I have mentioned a hockey team because the large networks have found it an incidental business conducive to the attainment of their objects. Furthermore, they became the owners of the New York Yankees and other large baseball teams of the American League. Why did they deem it advisable to become owners of professional football clubs? That was incidental and conducive to the purposes of the corporation.
February 5, 1968

The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) is right, for it is probably unlikely that the government would buy the Montreal Canadiens. I was just giving an example. [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
But under that paragraph, what would prevent, for instance, the directors of Warner Brothers from persuading the C.B.C. directors to buy 10 or 12 per cent of their shares? Not because they would need capital, but because through the establishment of tight bonds with the C.B.C., they would be in a more favoured position than other companies. That is where the evil lies.
I was referring to the newspaper La Presse, that the C.B.C. could also buy under this legislation, and I referred to paragraph (g), whereby the C.B.C. has power to:
-publish and distribute, whether for a consideration or otherwise, such papers, periodicals and other litterary matters as may be seem conducive to the purposes of the Corporation;
By publishing pages of advertising in Le Journal de Montreal or La Presse, or in the Quebec Le Soeil, could not the C.B.C.- which perhaps would not happen immediately with a newspaper such as La Presse, but could be the case with a small weekly or monthly review-suddenly encroach too much upon a field where, in my opinion, there is no reason for it to interfere at all?
The C.B.C. could acquire shares in companies which produce short films and commercials. It is a possibility and, in my opinion, that is the field into which the C.B.C. would find it an advantage to venture. But the C.B.C. will then find itself competing with another crown corporation which is already equipped to produce films, the National Film Board. Many small companies which would not have the competence necessary to give the results expected would disappear, and yet today, since the C.B.C. has not yet entered into this field, there are many small companies producing films for television.
Quietly, those small companies acquire experience, sign agreements with other international companies to acquire the necessary experience, and the Canadian film industry takes shape thanks to those companies which acquire more and more experience and merge for greater efficiency.
In my opinion, clause 39 (1) (m) is trying to interfere because from the day the C.B.C. decides to buy one of those small companies or 50 per cent of the shares, the said company will develop much more than the others, because the patronage of the C.B.C. will make up 80 per cent of its business and the film
27053-402J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting industry as a whole will suffer. That is why I feel that even if the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) says that the C.B.C. does not intend to buy La Presse tomorrow or in five years, still that opens the door to the C.B.C. and enables it to buy small monthly or weekly magazines. It also opens the door to the C.B.C. to buy companies that produce films for stations which compete with it in the field of television and perhaps to get into the field of sports as some big American television networks have done.
It may not be a hockey team to start with, but perhaps a gymnasium. Then, gradually, the C.B.C. will deviate from its purposes and instead of realizing its objective, which is the broadcasting of programs, it will have as main function the maintaining of sport teams, newspapers, other television stations or film companies. Thus the C.B.C. would be diverted from its objectives.
That is why I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, who agreed to answer my questions, whether something is contemplated at the present time, whether the C.B.C. or the Secretary of State want this paragraph to be included for a very definite purpose in the, near future. Is something specified?
The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. Then, what is the purpose of that paragraph? Those are questions that should be answered. This is what I object to.
I do not object to clause 39 as a whole, but to paragraph (m).
Since I have not been given any explanation, not knowing where the Secretary of State wants to lead us to, where the C.B.C. wants to go, I think it should be deleted and, all the more so, since the parliamentary secretary tells us that nothing is being contemplated for the time being under that paragraph. Then, if nothing is anticipated, let us drop it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Guess.


Gilles Grégoire: The Secretary of State tells me to guess. She knows very well that I do not know any of her secrets. All the same, it might be a good thing if she would give us a few explanations with respect to clause 39 (1) (m) and tell us if anything is contemplated for the near future in this connection.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to propose a very slight amendment to subclause (1) (g) of clause 39. During
February 5, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the many meetings of the broadcasting committee over the past two years one matter was raised which I felt was never sufficiently satisfied. It is something which I think should be important to us in this place inasmuch as we all, I presume, have some sense of history.
1 have in mind the proper maintenance of documents, not necessarily written documents in most cases but rather recordings, films and videotapes which effectively portray the great [DOT]events that take place during this period in our history.
1 have been shocked to discover that the present facilities the C.B.C. has for the preservation of its various productions, both audio and visual, are very lacking. I have been told by some who are employed by the corporation that no consistent effort has been made to preserve in a systematic way the best materials that are produced from time to time so that they will be available for future generations or even available on a businesslike basis for the production of programs relating to earlier films or recordings. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment to subclause (1) (g) of clause 39:
That 39 (1) (g) be amended by striking out the first three words and substituting therefor: "publish, distribute and preserve"


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Earl Cameron's move into limbo, that the C.B.C. was going to build up the greatest newsgathering organization in Canada. He said that the C.B.C. would not be satisfied to operate a second rate newsgathering organization but would build up the best newsgathering organization in Canada. That means at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. Of course, that means nothing to Burke and I am certain it means nothing to the C.B.C.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Why should the taxpayers of Canada be asked to pay taxes in order to collect news relating to current events in any part of the world when such news events are and have been properly, adequately and correctly reported for many generations by members of the fourth estate? The newspapermen of this world have been gathering news since newspapers were first established, and when radio burst on the world in the early 1920's many newspapermen were quick to perceive the way in which it could be used to broadcast the news.
I have mentioned before that I was associated with the Toronto Star and radio station CFCA, which was the second radio station on the North American continent. We published news over CFCA which the Toronto Star gathered. The question was asked whether the Toronto Star could broadcast news over CFCA in the 1920's and 1930's which we were obtaining from co-operative newspapers in Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and Winnipeg, when the contracts originally were that we could publish news so gathered co-operatively. The term "published" in those days was thought to refer to newspapers only.
The broadcasting of news over radio stations proved to be so popular that the Canadian Press, the granddaddy of all newsgathering organizations in Canada, decided at a publishers' meeting during a regular business session that they would sell the news they gathered primarily for their newspapers to radio stations and later to television stations, and a separate subsidiary company was set up called P.C.-Press Canadian, to distinguish it from Canadian Press-to sell news to the independent radio and television stations.
What in the name of heaven could a Canadian taxpayer, through the medium of the C.B.C., gather or learn about the news in any part of the world that is not now adequately covered by the newsgathering organizations which have been built up during the past 200 years? Why should the Canadian taxpayer be asked to engage in this private
February 5, 1968	COMMONS
enterprise business, bearing in mind that Canadian Press and Associated Press of the United States are both co-operatively owned? If you want to call these co-operatives private systems I presume there is nothing to stop you, but Associated Press and Canadian Press are co-operatively owned. They are not 100 per cent private enterprises as we now understand a private enterprise.
Why in the name of heaven, when Canadian Press is sending photographers and newspaper reporters to cover such things as the seizure of the Dutch trawler which we dragged into a Canadian port while the North Koreans were dragging a United States ship into one of their ports, should the C.B.C. be going to the expense of sending men down there to make photographs and write stories?
I ask this particularly because this incident would be adequately covered by the newspapers in St. John's, Newfoundland, with the assistance sent to them by the district office of Canadian Press in the maritimes. Surely the approach of that Dutch trawler into St. John's, Newfoundland, harbour is going to look just the same to the newspaper reporters of the St. John's newspapers as it would to any C.B.C. type flown down from Halifax, Montreal or Toronto. The same people will be looking at the same scene, and that newspaperman who is going to send his dispatch to the newspaper in St. John's, where in turn it will be dispatched to all newspapers through the Canadian Press, will see exactly the same thing as the C.B.C. man. The C.B.C. picture of the boat coming into St. John's harbour, compared with the picture the local newspaper would take and make available to all newspapers in Canada through the medium of the Canadian Press, and to those television and radio stations that want to subscribe to their services, would be the same.
If the Canadian government, through the medium of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is going to compete with the co-operatively owned Canadian Press news service why don't we compete with Eaton's in the department store field? If Mr. Burke is going to teach the Canadian Press, which means the newspaper publishers of this country, how to suck eggs, why does he not go to Eaton's to teach them how to suck eggs? Why pick on one long established commercial enterprise which has reflected credit on itself and brought the news of the world, the news of far-flung parts of Canada and the news around every corner to all Canada for these many years, to the complete satisfaction of the readers and the viewers?
DEBATES	6375
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
When this matter was discussed by the broadcasting committee I was given a snappy answer, and I use the word "snappy" on purpose. I was told it was much better to have motion picture films grinding out on C.B.C. television stations than stills. If there was a flood in Dresden, Ontario, I was told it would be much better to have a film showing the water rising and receding in Dresden than simply having a picture flashed on the screen showing the main street of Dresden or showing the flood conditions as they had been in London, Ontario some years ago when there was flooding on the Thames. It is funny, when we are told that the C.B.C. must have an absolutely accurate presentation by films of the present day and present moment situation, that we are still being given coverage by privately owned television stations through the use of still pictures. Of course, those stations are saving money and the saving of money is far, far, from the minds of those in the C.B.C. Apparently the saving of money never enters their minds. The C.T.V. news service is quite satisfactory, and there are many people who watch C.T.V. in preference to C.B.C. because they prefer that news service.
I have mentioned before in this house and at meetings of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts that the C.B.C., with the taxpayers' money, is trying to build up an operation in competition with the Canadian Press which is owned by Canadians. That ought to please the hon. member for Lapointe because there is no United States money involved in the Canadian Press. This service is all Canadian and it has a Canadian charter. Here we have the taxpayers of Canada being asked to compete in gathering news; yet the C.B.C. subscribes to the Canadian Press service although Canadian Press does not subscribe to the C.B.C. news service.
Paragraph (h) of subclause (1) of clause 39 gives the authority to this new body to establish news agencies. What right, in the name of heaven, has the Canadian government got to establish news agencies even in Canada when every corner of the country is now covered and the service is satisfactory? I suggest it is satisfactory as shown by the circulation figures of Canadian newspapers. Before somebody starts to scream that circulation is dropping let me point out that Canadian newspapers increase their prices from time to time and as they do so their circulation drops. People who have been buying two or three
6376	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting newspapers stop getting the extra one. The fact that circulation drops does not indicate that the public has stopped relying on Canadian newspaper news services. This only indicates the play of the market-place, such as we heard about during the dispute about the new department of consumer affairs.
When Canadian newspapers are able to show an increase in circulation and revenue from their readers because the news service they are giving is adequate I see no reason for this government, considering the financial problems we have in the country, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a competitive business such as newsgathering which is more than adequately covered in this country by the Canadian Press.
I have been told that we have to go to all parts of the world to gather news. We do not have to send people to Viet Nam at the taxpayers' expense and enable them to come back here and make off the cuff remarks which antagonize the United States government. I am sure you have never heard any Canadian newspaperman making statements like that. What does the C.B.C. do? All it asks for is money from the taxpayers to pay the expenses of employees travelling to all parts of the world so they can come back here and upset international relations which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has built up over many years. When these individuals shoot off their mouths we are told they are newspapermen and we cannot muzzle them. I am not suggesting that we should muzzle these chaps, but I do suggest the C.B.C. has no right to send these people to every part of the earth in order to obtain news which is made available to newspapers, radio stations and television stations by news services. Are we again going to throw our heads back and say we have to maintain a newsgathering system all over the world with the Canadian taxpayer paying for it, particularly when we compare it with the news service available to the public through the privately owned radio and T.V. networks?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am not for one moment going to admit that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news service is as good, let alone better than, the news services available to those who are willing to look at American stations and listen to the newscasts that they give. Most of the people who listen to the Canadian news services rather than the United States ones do so simply because of the local Canadian news.

DEBATES	February 5, 1968
In the international field you have to go the American stations to find out what is going on in all corners of the earth because those big networks, having a very wealthy market behind them, are able to keep correspondents throughout the world through the media of the Associated Press, Reuters, Havas and the other news services that have been building up everywhere. Havas and Wolffe-I am mentioning names in the newsgathering world of 30 years ago for you to conjure with-have merged into world organizations like Reuters which today covers the world. The C.B.C. can subscribe to the Reuters service and they will get adequate reporting from any corner of the world, if they will not take the Canadian Press service which is in co-operation with Associated Press.
Reuters, as most of you must know, is in competition with Associated Press throughout the world outside the United States. In the United States they recently opened up a large number of offices, but not to compete with Associated Press. They made the frank statement when they opened these offices that they were doing so to supplement the news service of Associated Press if the radio service, television service and newspapers wished to subscribe. Reuters is privately owned and in the United States competes with the privately owned United Press International and the cooperatively owned private organization, Associated Press. There is no government money being poured down a rat hole just in order to gather news here and there.
The Canadian taxpayer is entitled to a little more say, surely, about the way in which his money is being thrown around by the C.B.C. Why any money should be spent on collecting news relating to current events in any part of the world, and establishing news agencies, is beyond the comprehension of anyone who reads the daily newspapers of Canada and realizes what a marvellous service they give in the collecting, gathering and disseminating of news.
I have an amendment in respect of paragraph (h) but before moving it I would like to refer to paragraph (m) about which the hon. member for Lapointe was talking. Paragraph (m) says:
Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the corporation;
I have said before, and I say again, that this bill we are being asked to pass is the
February 5, 1968	COMMONS
finest piece of legislation ever introduced for the television and radio world of the past. Things are changing so fast in the radio and television world that if this bill goes through in its present form the operators in the television and radio world will not recognize it because they will be so far past it. The bill now before the transport committee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Hamilton West-I refer to the Bell Telephone bill-will have a greater impact on the world of radio and T.V. in Canada than this bill when both of them are part of the legislation of this parliament. Some members snickered when the hon. member for Lapointe was referring to the fact that television station owners or television station companies themselves were purporting to own football teams, baseball teams and hockey teams. The classic case in point is the Columbia Broadcasting System which owns the Yankees. When these television systems buy up sporting teams they do it in order to have a built-in program of their own with which they can do as they like. It is some years ago that the Yankees were sold to the C.B.S. The interesting thing is there are teams all over the United States that are owned by local radio or T.V. stations. In fact, there are teams in the United States that are owned by television operators who are not necessarily broadcasting from the town in which the ball team is franchised to play.
Some years ago people were quite interested to learn that the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants were moving to the west coast. There was quite a bit of excitement also when the Boston Braves were sold to Milwaukee. Of course, the Milwaukee franchise has been moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta. These changes are being made all the time in the sporting world.
There is an influence bearing on these changes in the big pro teams that is not readily recognized by the general public or the sporting public. When the Giants and the Dodgers moved to the west coast there were no big, first rate ball games on the west coast that would hold audiences for the local T.V. stations. By bringing these teams to the west coast two changes were realized. The first was that the teams were on the west coast and could play home games for the benefit of home television stations and viewers. In addition, they added to the intensity of the competition in the United States in that people in San Francisco and Los Angeles, who never had any interest in big league ball on television when it involved nothing but the team
DEBATES	6377
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting from Baltimore playing Boston or Chicago playing Washington, became interested in the sport. People on the west coast yawned at many of the games formerly televised because there was no local interest in them. When teams were moved into these areas the local loyalty that followed added to the interest of the viewers and the audiences of the T.V. stations increased.
On the west coast Jack Kent Cooke not only owns the Los Angeles Kings, which is being operated by a former member of this house, that magnificent hockey player, Red Kelly, but he also owns the Lakers basketball team which has built up a tremendous reputation in the United States and has a tremendous following on television when its games are broadcast. This raises the question of professional baseball-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Shall I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Education-request for federal assistance in teaching immigrant children, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), External Affairs-request for compensation for survivors of German concentration camps.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



WEST INDIES


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations
February 5, 1968

Trade with Caribbean Federation with the former British possessions in the West Indies which have not yet attained independence and further that, if the residents of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with the Dominion of Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new subject for me. I note that on June 3, 1964, June 21, 1965 and June 22, 1966, I discussed this subject matter although in somewhat different phraseology. I am now discussing it in February, 1968, and I only wish I were discussing the subject on the spot rather than here in the capital of cold Canada. The difficulties of the day have been furthered by the fact I was trying to collect my thoughts against the background of the radio coverage of the conference over in the west block.
It is, I think, appropriate that I, not as a person but as a representative of an island, continue to be interested in the subject of this resolution. We islanders have many peculiarities, some people might say, but I think we have a feeling of special kinship for these residents of the former British West Indies. I have always had a special concern with the area because in my academic years I had many students from that part of the world, and of no group of students did I have a higher opinion than of those young people. I am happy that Canadian universities have established contacts that are worth while and lasting.
The area to which I am making reference in my resolution does not, of course, cover the whole of what we used to describe as the British West Indies but rather a smaller group of islands that are not fully independent and have not followed the path of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and now the Barbados. I refer to the small islands with a total population of about three quarters of a million people and a total area even smaller than the province of Prince Edward Island. I am referring to those very small islands of St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat and Dominica. People who drink either lime juice or rum will know about some of them at least. The area is tiny but the problems are great. There is a shortage of land, a shortage of skilled labour and at the same time a tremendous overpopulation, not to mention one of the great problems, the shortage of fresh water.
In many eases these islands have a sensitive dependence upon a one-product economy, a product which often occupies a precarious position in world markets. Generally, they have a very narrow resource base. The gross

national product is low and wages are low but unemployment is high. Perhaps it is some of these latter statistics that make it possible for a maritimer in the Dominion of Canada to understand their problems. In other words, the situation of some of the people of these islands is serious as they press forward in a situation now more precarious because of political developments.
There are many problems facing our world today but one of the great problems is the disparity in the living standards of people. A hundred years ago Abraham Lincoln referred to his own country by saying, "No nation can exist half slave and half free." Can a world exist half affluent and half painfully depressed? The fractions, we know, are not precise because we know the world is not half affluent; the affluent part is a minority. I do not think the world can go on this fashion without repercussions. An enlightened people, an alert and sensitive member of the world community such as Canada is and proclaims itself to be, cannot be unaware of this sort of situation so near to us geographically.
These interesting little islands are, in a political sense, emerging nations. As political entities, of course, they are not new. In a real sense they are old communities. They have interesting traditions of British law and British institutions developed in a unique way in this unique and very beautiful part of the world. I need not, Mr. Speaker, detail the economic needs of these tiny islands. However, it is not exaggeration or condescension to say simply that both the economic and political viability of these small islands is most precarious. Sustained, massive action is required for their future stability, progress and prosperity.
The question which concerns us is, who should help and what help can be given? The United Kingdom has done much. The United States has helped. Canada has done a great deal and I am happy that the level of our assistance is rising. However, I believe that Canada is uniquely qualified to do much more in this area. Perhaps we in this area of the world could become a decisive factor in the efforts of these people for viability, both economic and political. We have close contacts with these people. Recently I read that 40 per cent of the tourist trade of the whole of what we used to call the British West Indies is made up of Canadian people. We have traded with these people over the years. Especially in the maritimes we have had close commercial contacts. We sold them our fish and
February 5, 1968

bought from them molasses and rum. I think we got the better end of the deal in terms of gustatorial satisfaction, if nothing else.
We are near to these islands. There are many parts of Canada that are closer to these islands than they are to many other parts of this dominion. Improved air service, and this I salute, is bringing us closer. In the field of transportation we are being helpful in providing improvements in air support of this area. There is much more we can do. Transportation facilities both by sea and by air can be vastly improved.
Another reason why I think we are uniquely qualified lies in our commonwealth membership. I am not yet prepared to accept the idea that the commonwealth is nothing more than a subject for effusive after-dinner speakers. I cannot but believe there is some vitality in this interesting commonwealth idea and ideal, to which Canada has given such great leadership since the days of Robert Borden.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In this context I think there is a chance to make a vital and real contribution within the commonwealth structure. It is interesting that in the constitution of the islands to which I have referred there is a reference to them being self-governing states in free association with Great Britain, with the United Kingdom looking after their external affairs and defence. Also in their present document is the indication that the islands may change from a free state in association with Great Britain to free association with any other commonwealth countries. The process by which this change in relationship may be undertaken is a relatively simple one and can be coped with by the local government. I hope that if asked Canada would gladly and generously accept responsibility for this external aspect of sovereignty, namely, conduct of external affairs and defence. Personally, I go as far as the motion goes and say we should be willing to offer, if the peoples of these islands desire it, not only economic union but political union.
I am not unaware of the problems that might be involved here, and I will not be deluded into believing that in some of these difficult problems of race relations our country has been as Simon pure as we would sometimes seem to be when we criticize and castigate others. I am aware of all the potential problems. But surely, if three-quarters of a million people living in so small an area were to reach out for us to help them in a massive way, even to this extent, I think it would be a shame and a disgrace as well as
Trade with Caribbean Federation an indignity were we unprepared and unwilling to lend such strength as we have to assist them in their efforts toward a richer and fuller life. In any case, Mr. Speaker, if we do not reach the stage of seeing at an early day political union between Canada and the West Indies, then I hope we will do all we can this side of that development, and do all we can to aid them in the future.
I should like to close with a few words on the question of external aid to these islands. I am one of those who believe tremendously in the importance of our external aid program. When so many other aspects of diplomatic endeavours are running into great difficulty, frustration, anxiety, distress and disappointment, I still hold great hope for an enlightened external aid program.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether a country such as Canada can carry on a meaningful program of aid to 65 countries scattered all over the world. In my opinion the Canadian external aid program could be described at the present time as offering too little aid to too many. I suggest it would be the better part of wisdom to concentrate on areas where our special kind of aid could be most effective. In this area where we do a job well let us do it thoroughly as well. Let us apply ourselves to aiding those areas of the world where, with well trained personnel, full discussion with the people involved and with the full understanding that is obtained by knowledge and contact with these people, thoughtful and intelligent long-range planning and follow-through can be brought about. Let us devote our finances and energy to this end. I have no patience with those people who say: "Oh, you have troubles enough in your own country, why try to save the world?" If we wait until we solve all our own problems we will sit passive, silent and useless forever in this world of ours.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should establish a set of priorities, and for the reasons I have advanced this would be my first priority. I say this because of our history, our propinquity, our Commonwealth association, the indigenous need, and the opportunity for us to meet that need and perform a useful service to people facing great trials and difficulties that are inherent in their economic situation. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was very happy with the meeting that took place in July, 1966, but much more needs to be done. We would delude ourselves were we to think for one moment that even with the improvements that have been made
6380	COMMONS
Trade with Caribbean Federation in recent years we were measuring up not only to the demands but to our capacity to meet those demands.
There are in the maritimes some experts on the West Indies situation. One of these is Professor Fraser of Acadia University who has studied this question for many years. In an interesting report of a meeting which took place at Dalhousie University in 1966 there was a very pungent paragraph, reading as follows:
A report carried in the Financial Post of June 6, 1964, said that "Ottawa has been slightly discouraged by the snappish tone some West Indian politicians have displayed." The wonder is. of course, that there has not been more of it. West Indian leaders increasingly look to Canada for leadership and material help. It is remarkable to me that they continue to do so. It is astonishing that West Indian leaders still accept Canadian promises of concern for, and interest in, the region. Canada has over the years given the West Indians little reason to take our West Indian policy seriously. Over these years we have promised the West Indies the moon. But so far we have given them only a very little green cheese. It is not nearly enough.
Professor Fraser's remarks are a bit cryptic. Since he has uttered them we have done more. But I say again, Mr. Speaker, there is yet much more to do. I hope we will accept the challenge and move forward with all the energy we can so as to meet generously and fully the calls for aid which come from these people. If that is done I think I can say that we will have rendered on the international scene the kind of service for which we are suited, the kind of service that a country which enunciates the principles that we enunciate should render.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I have time I will be delighted.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the remarks of the hon. member about the West Indies I should like to ask him whether he does not agree that the parliamentarians of this House of Commons have already evidenced a keen interest in the West Indies in that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which you, Mr. Speaker, are president, and the hon. member who has just taken his seat is a member, last year made a commitment which will be carried through-and I speak as the House of Commons vice-chairman of the C.P.A.-to invite 12 parliamentarians from the West Indies to visit Canada as our guests this year?

DEBATES	February S, 1968
Does that not truly express the interest of the parliamentarians of this house and the other place in the West Indies problem and indicate that we seek some understanding of their situation?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, if I have time to respond I would say most heartily that I think this is just the kind of thing that parliamentarians should be doing. I hope this example will be followed by others and that a greater exchange between our two peoples will ensue. I am happy that the hon. member reminded me of this; I did know about it and I salute it.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I personally join in this recommendation of my hon. friend from the maritimes. I think it is appropriate that he renew his plea for the West Indies because, among other reasons, of his long and proud association with Mount Allison University. Over the years Mount Allison, along with Dalhousie, Acadia, the University of New Brunswick-indeed, all the areas of higher learning where this problem is really understood-have shared basically in the thesis that has been so ably and eloquently propounded by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). I feel that time may be running out, that while our leaders, federal and provincial, are in the confederation block discussing the unity of our own country a responsibility lies on Canada with respect to this sensitive and exotic part of the world.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
My hon. friend from Queens spoke specifically of the eastern Caribbean region, and for good reason. I believe he mentioned Montserrat, Antigua, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and St. Kitts. I also wish to refer to the West Indies area generally because I think that as Canadians we have a large and unavoidable responsibility in the entire area.
If we were more conscious of our obligations and responsibilities elsewhere perhaps our problems at home would loom less large and might be more easily and generously resolved. I know it has been contended that we must avoid establishing any constitutional arrangement with any islands which might perhaps smack of colonialism or of a colonial arrangement. The point has sometimes been made that in our relations with the West Indies we should avoid playing favourites. In
February 5, 1968

my remarks I speak for myself and not necessarily for my party. A responsible representation, I understand, will follow mine. Speaking for myself, I believe that what has been suggested in this motion is wise and sensible and in the long run will benefit Canada at home and abroad.
Does this proposal present such a great challenge, really? The hon. member has put before us two proposals, one being, in effect, union or confederation. With that I concur. If such were accomplished the benefits of our advanced economy and our expertise in many [DOT]directions would be made available to our close island friends. Is there room in our Canadian thinking and constitution for a province in the Caribbean? We should think about this seriously. The West Indian view has been ably put by H.O.B. Wooding, Q.C., who was called to the Middle Temple in 1927. He reminds us that overtures for closer Canada-West Indies trade relations were first made more than 100 years ago. At that time the West Indies were a chain of wealthy and strategic islands for the possession of which many a battle was waged. Indeed, in the history of the eighteenth century we find that the islands were regarded as more valuable than Canada. There wrere objections to economic and political movements tending to unite Canada and the islands, including the movement of free trade.
Less than 30 years later Sir John A. Macdonald appointed an adviser to himself on West Indian affairs and chose for the office Sir Francis Hincks, who had been formerly governor of Barbados. From Barbados a letter was sent by Sir Francis urging that Barbados be admitted as a member of our confederation.
The Leeward Islands also were active. Their solicitor-general, Mr. Henry Berkeley, in 1884 felt that the islands were strongly in favour of closer union with Canada. Seventy five years ago economic factors were sufficiently compelling to induce Canada and the West Indies to seek a closer relationship with each other.
I jump over to the Borden era. Professor Kenneth McNaught, in an article entitled "Should Canada 'Adopt' the West Indies", says that Francis Keefer, who was the Canadian parliamentary under secretary of state for external affairs, wrote to Borden as follows:
Now is the time, it seems to me-
Trade with Caribbean Federation
Wrote Keefer to Borden.
-for the Canadian government to quietly bring up with the Home Government the advisability of suggesting to the West Indian officials the desirability of joining the Canadian Confederation.
He went on to say:
I would dearly love to see you finish your term of office, in addition to what you have done, by adding to Confederation these British possessions in the West Atlantic.
Sir Robert Borden replied:
The question of handing over the administration of the British West Indies Island to Canada or of having them formally annexed to Canada has been under discussion with the British government more or less during the past two years.
Of course, we are not now talking about any colonial arrangement. Heaven knows, we have learned too much about the agonies that result from such arrangements. But let us go back to the nuts and bolts of such arrangements. Let us look at the hard facts, and I am referring to what Canada is selling to the West Indies. We sell flour, fish, pickled and salted, motor vehicles and parts, meats, canned fish and fabrics as well as many other commodities, but these are the half dozen most important ones. What is Canada buying from the West Indies? We buy bauxite and aluminum, sugar, crude petroleum, juices, fruit, molasses and rum. It is clear that there is a great natural advantage in a relationship between two such complementary economic areas.
Most of us are familiar with the recent representation of Hon. John Compton, chief minister of St. Lucia. May I refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 4, 1967. The article reads in part:
-the possibility of free trade between Canada and the Windwards was canvassed by John Compton, St. Lucia's chief minister, in Ottawa in 1965, and the idea found a warm response.
Elsewhere Sir John Compton says, "The islands are moving toward a political vacuum in the eastern Caribbean". Surely the people of North America have a great stake in freedom. This is a matter in which Canadians have an important share and a continuing concern. What is to be our contribution to an unstable world? Do we want our friends, who for many reasons cannot now look to Britain with the same confidence as before with respect to economic assistance, to feel that they are unable to rely on any real co-operation from Canada? The United States is too preoccupied to be responsive to the area's needs. Do we want these good people who
0382	COMMONS
Trade with Caribbean Federation have been brought up with a language that is common to ours, whose parliamentary traditions, culture, system of jurisprudence and system of values are common to ours-and many of those in the area who have received higher education have received it in our Canadian universities or in the United Kingdom-to feel that they must now look elsewhere for assistance, as Cuba has done?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Sir, within the last few months we have gone through a very difficult study of our defence responsibilities and trends and we made a deliberate decision, with unification, to develop a highly mobile, elite force. Yet all the experts who talk to us about peace keeping say that such a force in 90 per cent of the occasions which can be foreseen will be used in tropical or semi-tropical conditions between 20 degrees north and 20 degrees south of the equator. How does Canada propose to train in the years ahead a highly mobile defence force? To me it is perfectly logical that we should seek, if not confederation, at least some close association with these neighbours, helping them to develop an infrastructure, helping them to improve communications, building them up, island by island, strengthening their economies and directing, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) suggested, far more cooperative attention to this area of the world in order that our aid might show some concrete result.
Could we not regard the British West Indies, as a great sociological workshop, where our country of 20 million people, the second richest in the world, seek to assist its friends, approximately four million people, living in a thoroughly delightful climate-the best, I am told, from the standpoint of human pleasure, in the world. Could we not so combine our affairs, so co-ordinate our enterprise and our efforts that we become, if not one country, of great comfort and assistance to each other?
If more Canadian dollars were diverted to this area-and we have been told that 40 per cent of the tourism in the West Indies is even now Canadian in origin-if we provided for our forces island training for a more effective defence posture, and if our economic assistance became adequate to this truly deserving people, then our aid could result, not in a lost cause but in a great success, simply because we had decided to use whole measures rather than half measures. I have personally every sympathy for what we are doing under the Colombo plan-I have a sister who was there
[Mr. Matheson.l
DEBATES	February 5. 1968
for some time with her husband and children. We know, too, that the Governor General and others in Canada who have had anything to do with India or Pakistan appreciate how vital this program is. And yet, as Dame Barbara Ward has said, there is a great danger of dividing and dispersing our efforts under these aid programs to such an extent that they are less than meaningful. Here is a case where by reason of history, geography and common tradition we have an unmistakable responsibility throughout the Caribbean area.
May I mention another point which is always worthy of consideration? I am turning aside from the obvious advantage of being able to find within our alliance friends whose territories complement our rigorous winter northern climate. We know that the United States has benefited very greatly from its association with St. Thomas and the Virgin Islands. Who could question the great strength which has come to the United States by the accession to the union of the wonderful state of Hawaii. We know that the French islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe have gained greater strength by their common association. I wonder whether Canada is now big enough, as Duncan Fraser and so many other scholars have suggested, to assume her proper role in this area, and to cease taking a superior attitude toward others in the world who find themselves encountering racial problems and responsibilities. Last week I spent two days in Washington wondering how it comes about that we can be so critical of our neighbours who are now trying to do big things in the realm of sociology. Are we in Canada really serious when we talk about living in a country which is strengthened by diversity? I will not easily forget the occasion on which the great Marion Anderson came down to Queen's University to get an honorary degree. Leonard Brockington helped her prepare the message she delivered, but she did it in her own inimitable way. Among other things which were memorable and moving in her words to those young people was a quotation from a poem written by an unknown Jamaican:
Dark people singing in my veins,
Fair people singing sweet strains,
And when I bow my head in prayer,
X bow with dark hands, blue eyes, red hair.
As we go through these difficult days asking ourselves how we are to make confederation in Canada more viable during the next hundred years, how we are to reconcile conflicting views on these petty differences of
February 5, 1968

language, it seems to me the suggestion put forward so eloquently by the hon. member for Queens is one which, if followed, would make us a bigger, prouder, more generous and more united people.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: It is one
of the idiosyncracies of the Canadian parliament that on one part of our premises we should be considering-probably not too hopefully-the difficulties which are dividing us internally, while at the same time we should be considering in this chamber a suggestion that Canada has now reached a stage at which we should take over some of the duties previously performed by Britain to the extent of assisting other parts of the commonwealth through programs and policies with which we have not been associated in the past.
I have always believed we should have a close relationship with the West Indies. As a Canadian coming from a climate which even here is regarded as northerly, I can see many advantages about having available to us a winter wonderland where our people can enjoy the sunshine and the sea. Tourist revenue is nowadays a significant part of national income. I can recall figures of several years ago showing that Canada was running a trade deficit approaching $400 million on its account with the United States alone. This seems an extremely high figure having in mind the large numbers of tourists from the United States whom we see coming here each year.
The adverse balance of $400 million arises mainly because of the climatic difference between the two countries. Those who go south to the sun are accustomed to taking holidays of longer duration than do their counterparts who visit northern areas at times when our season is favourable. Then again, Americans travelling in the north are accustomed to using our national parks at low rates; they bring their own pop and other supplies to last them during a two-week stay. Canadians travelling south are not so fortunate. For obvious reasons I see a great advantage in establishing a relationship with the islands of the Caribbean which would work out to our mutual advantage.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I am often surprised at the number of things we buy from the United States-items we could just as easily buy from other countries to which we could in turn export Canadian goods. Many of the purchases we make from the United States, if we made
Trade with Caribbean Federation them from commonwealth countries with which we have close connections, could make a great difference to their balance of payments and economies. Canadian importation of bananas and citrus fruits from commonwealth countries could be significant to their economies, and yet not make so much difference to California and some of the other traditional supplying markets we have had over the years.
Such a step cannot be brought about merely by the wishes of the Canadian public. It must be by government direction and by close co-operation with these countries, after discovering what materials we have that we can exchange for goods that they can supply; and here I speak specifically of the Caribbean islands. I do not entirely agree with those who say we are now in a position to take in the Caribbean nations as part of the Canadian confederation. We do not know what the future of our confederation will be five years hence. It is quite probable that we will have something in the nature of a Suez canal running through part of Canada, and will have some difficulty servicing the maritime provinces without going through someone else's territory. Knowing this, and knowing that unless we are given more leadership than we have had in the past few years, it is foolish to talk about an economic or political union with islands far removed from the central areas of Canada. For this reason the government may not be willing to give consideration to this motion. However, trade and the exchange of tourists are matters which could be developed to the advantage of both areas.
The sponsor of the motion has discussed our role in the commonwealth, and I am in complete agreement with what he said on that topic. When I attended the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Uganda I was surprised to learn how many commonwealth countries looked to Great Britain for aid when difficulties arose. It is true that Canada gives a small amount of money for such aid. I do not suggest that we can increase this amount at the moment. The reason that we cannot is that the average Canadian suffers from a lack of knowledge about external aid and its purposes.
I was also surprised to find out that aid given by the commonwealth, particularly by Great Britain, to newly developing countries was given with no strings attached. This contrasts with the American concept where you "don't give nothin' for nothin' ", where you want $2 returned for every dollar you spend,
February 5, 1968'

Trade with Caribbean Federation and you want to see that $2 now. The Americans have never given aid to any country without telling that country how much it was indebted to the United States. Yet with all the aid they have given to Korea and Viet Nam they have been unable to win many friends or accomplish much in those countries. We, living in the North American environment, will have to steer a course between the British concept of aid and the American concept.
Each time the Canadian government makes a donation to a newly developing country I get four or five letters from constituents asking, "Why in hell should we be giving money to a country we never heard of, when our old age pensions are not high enough and our other benefits are not sufficient? Why not do something for us at home before starting to give money away?" These people do not realize that the money given to other countries will bring them a return, if the proper arrangements are made. These arrangements have not been made. We have never made trade arrangements with many of the countries that we assist.
When I was in Uganda I had the opportunity, if one wishes to call it so to spend some time in a hospital. The sheets on my bed were made in England. The medicines that were supplied were made in England. The bed cover was made in Scotland. The glucose, which came in a can, was made in Ireland. In other words Britain received some benefit from the aid it provided by developing trade with Uganda.
I am sure the sponsor of this motion is not unmindful of the fact that when we may give assistance we will also expect something in return. It is not enough to supply one doctor to a newly developing country. We should be able to supply a number of doctors, establish a hospital, and thus be able to say that the Canadian people are doing something in a particular locality. No missionary sent out to the mission field can expect support without being able to show to the church sponsoring him pictures of the church he has built, the people he is helping, and the concrete results of the contributions sent to him. The average individual Canadian on the street is unable to see any results from our foreign aid.
I do not see us giving the people of the Caribbean anything more than we are likely to receive from them. But I do see more trade being developed with the entire area, including Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and other places which were part of the West Indies. If they joined with us they could supply us with

products that, because of climatic conditions, we cannot produce ourselves. In turn we could supply them with many goods they are unable to produce.
Obviously there will be problems ahead. At the moment we cannot even get along with the province of Quebec on two simple problems, one being the language problem, and the other the much more important one, that the province of Quebec has never really grown up and played its role in confederation. It is like an adolescent child which has reached the stage that it is able to go out and make a few bucks, and so says, "To heck with the family that raised me. I won't contribute to the pot. I want all this for myself." Obviously Quebec is not interested in becoming a "have" province within confederation, yet for a long time as a "have not" province it has been assisted greatly in a number of fields. This is a problem that we have not been able to solve.
In the circumstances we will not be able to take on the problem of the Caribbean for quite some time. Until we are able to solve the first problem we will not be able to solve the second. In Canada we have been Simon pure so far as racial problems are concerned, simply because they have not arisen. When there are only a very few people involved it is easy to say, "There will be no discrimination." All of us have known a few people of other races in various communities, and when they are few in number it is very easy to say of one of them, "Yes, I know Joe, and he is a pretty good guy". We can look at him as an individual and not as a representative of a class of people.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
We have not had a problem similar to the Puerto Rican problem of New York, the Harlem problem or the ghetto problem of Detroit, but I believe Great Britain now is experiencing some of these problems and has not been able to solve them. This is something which must be considered if we are to extend full partnership to these islands, because this would mean that there would be an exchange of persons from the West Indies on a permanent basis who may be of a race and colour different from that of the majority of the general Canadian public. This is not an insurmountable problem; but we must reach a fairly high degree of sophistication before this partnership can take place, particularly with the political ramifications which to-date we do not seem to have been able to handle.
February 5, 1968

I believe the stature of Canada among the nations of the commonwealth would increase vastly if the government should accept this motion or give some study immediately to the feasibility of a very limited union of an economic nature. The government should consider the future implications of an economic and political union leading eventually to provincial status for the West Indies. I of course have not been to these areas. I have not spoken to many people from the smaller islands who might be interested in the type of proposal we are suggesting. However, since the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has moved to bring a number of these delegates to Canada this year, I think the government would be well advised to consider discussing with them the possibility of at least this limited co-operation in an economic sense, and the feasibility of discussing political and provincial status arrangements.
In closing I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) for having raised this matter. I find it disconcerting that this type of motion should come from those of a conservative bent, when obviously it is something which is very progressive in outlook. I therefore doubly congratulate him. I am aware of the fact that the people in the maritime provinces have been much more interested in the expansion of Canada and have in many ways made a greater contribution to the stature of the discussions which take place in respect of the development of our nation, than those in other parts of Canada, including my province, who have always been more interested in what they can get out of the association than what they put in.
I hope arrangements will be made immediately for the expansion of export aid, and that this will be done in a meaningful way so that the people who receive it will be aware of the friendliness of the Canadian public behind the gesture. Those people in turn will be able to bring to the attention of the Canadian public, through their acceptance of the aid, the fact that this type of aid is mutual. While we may be in the position of supplying the dollars now, the benefits of the dollars in helping other countries to develop will bring greater rewards to the Canadian public as the years go by, through trade and co-operation in the commonwealth arrangement.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion of the hon.
Trade with Caribbean Federation member for Queens. Last year and in previous years the hon. member has had a motion of a similar nature promoting closer relations with the West Indies. Last year I seized the occasion to discuss the Patrick proposal for a better Canada-West Indies relationship. Since that time some of the islands have reached independence and the Canada-West Indies conference has taken place in Ottawa.
Barbados, Trinidad and Jamaica now are full fledged independent commonwealth nations. Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada and others are independent states in association with Great Britain. However, as the hon. member for Queens pointed out, the constitution of these associated states permits the islands to change from a free state in association with Great Britain to a free state in association with another commonwealth country. This could be done by a very simple procedure. Some of the other islands such as Montserrat and St. Vincent are still possessions of Great Britain, having an administrator who is appointed, not elected.
As a result of last year's conference Canadian external aid to this area of the world has been greatly increased. The Canadian government will spend a minimum of $65 million in the next five years. There will be special assistance to the local university, aid in radio communications and aid in airport extension. The premiers and leaders of the islands consult and co-operate in the promotion of these projects.
The proposal for a new Canada-West Indies relationship deals mainly with the so-called little eight islands of Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada with a total population of about 700,000. Under the proposal Canada would assume the role of senior partner and would invite the islands to join us in a monetary and customs union. Canada would provide for their defence and external affairs representation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired. I do now leave the chair. It being seven o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to
February 5, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-163, an act to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee moved into private members business at six o'clock I was discussing clause 39 of the bill with particular reference to paragraphs (h) and (m). I have an amendment to paragraph (h) which I shall move in a moment, because if I should move it now I would be unable to comment on paragraph (m).
Earlier I pointed out that financial interests acquire sporting organizations such as hockey, football, baseball and basketball teams, because of the cost of obtaining rights to cover programs on television and radio stations, if they have such stations under their control. Many people may think that this is unbelievable, but it is the fact. Many of these teams we follow through our newspapers, radio and television stations, are owned outright by radio and television personalities, for the reason I have mentioned.
As I have said before, this act is the greatest radio and television act one could imagine for the benefit of investors in radio and television, and if it is accepted it will have the greatest effect on sporting activities the world has ever seen. Teams are being bought up by these organizations. I should not like the public to think that for the rest of time we are going to be able to sit in our living rooms anywhere in North America and watch first class hockey games and first class world series ball games without having to pay. Many people can get hot and bothered about a C.B.C. installation forming a network to put these games into the homes of people throughout the country, but it is ridiculous to think we can force the people who have money to make all these big professional sports events available through an open 
broadcasting system without the viewers having to pay for the privilege of watching. Whenever money can be made in this way, the viewers must pay for the service.
We cannot continue for ever and a day to broadcast over the open airwaves the work of professional athletes such as the hockey players, football players and baseball players without compensating them for the entertainment they bring into the homes of the nation. It is all right for people to scream that these athletes are making more money now than they ever made before, because of television, but we must remember that the participants in those leagues below the top are still being paid peanuts. We all know of the Dallas player who was suspended for seven weeks because he looked cross-eyed at a coach. These professional players today use their sinew and muscle, and unless they share in the profits being made through television they will not go along with the distribution of these programs across the nation, as is the case in respect of the C.B.C. system.
Certainly the C.B.C. does not receive full compensation for the amount of money it spends to put these sports activities over the air. I could go on with this subject at some length, but I know my time is limited. Perhaps I will have something else to say following the remarks of another hon. member who may speak. In any event I should like at this time to move an amendment to paragraph (h) of subclause (1) of clause 39. I move:
That the words ''collect news relating to current events in any part of the world and establish and" be deleted from paragraph (h) of subclause (1) of clause 39.
This would mean that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would have to get its news from newsgathering services available to them, including Reuters, Associated Press and Canadian Press. This will provide a little surcease for the Canadian taxpayer. Why should he be forced into this competitive newsgathering game when other newsgathering organizations are now providing this service? In any event I should like to move this amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess, and since, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for York-Humber.


An hon. Member:: Have you understood him any better than the rest of us?


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that he has a long and distinguished record in the journalistic
February 5, 1968
world, but for the life of me I cannot understand his half hour discourse on paragraphs (h) and (m) of subclause (1) of clause 39. His amendment is completely out of this world.


James Edgar Walker: I rise on a point of order. Would it be possible to have the Chair read the original amendment moved by the hon. member for York-Humber so we will all know the relation of the hon. member's remarks?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It has been moved by Mr. Cowan:
That the words "collect news relating to current events in any part of the world and establish and" be deleted from sub-clause (h) of section 1 of clause 39.
Perhaps I should read again the words to be deleted. They are, "collect news relating to current events in any part of the world and establish and".
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment moved by the hon. member were to carry, it would strike out, as you have already read:
-collect news relating to current events in any part of the world and establish and-
If this were done, paragraph (h) would then read:
-subscribe to news agencies;
Just what kind of a C.B.C. would we have if that were the case? If this amendment were in effect now, it would mean that my hon. friend could not be interviewed out in the corridor on the stupidity or otherwise of his remarks in this house. It would mean that no member of the House of Commons or the Senate, or anybody who knows anything about what is happening in Canada that is of importance to the public, could be televised or recorded as to his views on the situation, because in the terms of the amendment the corporation could use only the news it obtains by subscribing to news agencies.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: You should see them on the private stations.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member says, "You should see them on the private stations", so he wants to completely discriminate between the public corporation and private stations. He would allow private stations to interview members of parliament, himself included, and gather news across Canada or anywhere else in the world, but not the corporation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Not at the taxpayers' expense.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Harold Edward Winch: For just how long would the public corporation maintain any audience, on that basis, Mr. Chairman? I am afraid that my hon. friend, with all his journalistic experience, has got himself into the narrow position of a straight, linotype, punch-board operation, not realizing-and I listened very carefully when he spoke prior to the dinner recess-that if his amendment were passed the corporation could obtain only still pictures from the news agencies. Or perhaps the hon. member does realize this.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this House of Commons who watch the news on private stations or the C.B.C., is there not a fantastic difference between seeing a still picture on television and seeing a moving picture of what is taking place? Yet the hon. member for York-Humber wants this house to pass an amendment that will say that as far as the public corporation is concerned, in the reporting of news they shall only use a still picture supplied to them by reason of a subscription to a news agency. His amendment, if passed, would mean that we would not be allowed to see the motion, the activity, the emotion of what is going on.
The hon. member just now interpolated that the restriction he wishes to place on the corporation shall not be applied to private radio or television stations. He wants free enterprise in this area to use motion, emotion and the travelling scene. Private radio and television stations will be able to interview the hon. member and members of parliament, if this amendment is passed, but the public corporation shall not have that right. I see, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend is nodding his head, indicating that I am saying exactly what he has in mind.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: This is the most retrograde, despicable proposition ever made in this House of Commons. There is no question whatsoever that this man is so far back in respect of current publicity and public relations giving the complete picture of what is going on, that I say that journalisticwise his views even pre-date those to which I referred a moment ago in respect of the installation of the linotype.
This amendment is so retrograde, so reprehensible, that any member of a progressive nature would be repudiated by the Conservative party, let alone the Liberals. This amendment should be rejected immediately.

5388	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Just one moment, Mr. Chairman. I will not take more than a moment or two of the time of the committee, but I maintain that Canadian taxpayers should not be assessed these millions of dollars to operate a news service in competition with the news service that is paid for by private enterprise, which does not cost Canadian taxpayers one cent. That is the whole basis of my argument.
Amendment (Mr. Cowan) negatived: Yeas, 3; nays, 47.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think I owe it to the hon. member for Lapointe to very briefly speak to his comments with respect to paragraph (m). This provision is in the bill for a number of reasons, and I think it is very necessary having regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Humber about purchasing football teams and sports groups of one kind and another. Two things must be realized in reference to this paragraph; first, that any purchase of shares has to be in connection with the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the corporation and, second, and perhaps of paramount importance, it is subject to the approval of the governor in council.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this is no thin edge of the wedge of an incursion into private business or attempt to take over from the film board or private enterprise, as has been suggested. Nor is it even suggested that any minor teams, let alone major teams, will be taken over by the corporation. It is a matter of efficiency. If there is a co-production agreement between the corporation and any film group, more likely those who invest in the soon-to-be established film corporation, this is an attempt to limit the liability of the corporation in that the responsibility involved would be only the loss or gain of shares and would not affect the partnership that obtains. Further, it is hoped there will be a more efficient use of moneys invested by groups such as a company that is set up to manufacture and use costumes for films, and things of this kind. It may be that a corporation would be set up specifically to film the classics of French and English literature such as those of

DEBATES	February 5, 1968
Racine, Moliere and Shakespeare, things that have not been done, and would sell abroad. One of the difficulties has been, not that the corporation has spent too much money but that it has not spent enough time and ingenuity to try to recover the money spent on the films it has made, by seeing that they would not be shown just in Canada but would be shown on English and French television around the world.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
As educational television becomes more important, it is highly likely that corporations will be formed to film the classics which those corporations would be able to sell to networks around the world. The C.B.C. might have a desire to share in this because it could represent revenue to the C.B.C. I think my hon. friend, rather than being afraid of the things that might come to pass under this provision, might find it a stimulation to the provision of some moneys which will help the corporation get ahead, as it has not been able to do heretofore. I hope my hon. friend will be prepared to allow the corporation to try this new venture, since it must in every case get the money from parliament through the aegis of the governor in council, who must approve any specific engagement into which the corporation wishes to enter.


Gilles Grégoire: I have just one small
question.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. Secretary of State whether the C.B.C. intends, under this clause, to share with Power Corporation the ownership of the satellites above the province of Quebec?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, there is no such suggestion. It is quite obvious that in the international sphere, things like satellites, if there are to be satellites, will be specifically Canadian. They must be owned, not by the corporation or an agency of the government, but by the government and the people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 40-Corporation an agent of Her Majesty.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, as regards clause 40, I have no objection to the principle here, but I have as regards the wording.
February 5, 1968

It states that the corporation "is an agent of Her Majesty". Subclauses (1) and (2) provide the following:
The Corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into contracts in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the Corporation.
Subclause (3) states the following:
Property acquired by the Corporation is the property of Her Majesty-
How is it that the Canadian people pay taxes and that all that will be the property of Her Majesty? That is what is written here:
Property acquired by the Corporation is the property of Her Majesty and title thereto may be vested in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the Corporation.
Subclause (4) reads as follows:
Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the Corporation on behalf of Her Majesty, whether in its name or in the name of Her Majesty-
Could we not change that? I do not accept this term and, on the other hand, the term "Her Majesty" is not defined. Clause (3) that deals with interpretation does not refer to "Her Majesty". Therefore, I am categorically and vigorously opposed. Let us apply all this as mentioned in subclause (3):
Property acquired by the Corporation-
All that is acquired by the corporation is so acquired through our taxes and, in no case, in the name of Her Majesty. I cannot accept that.
I heard this afternoon extracts of the federal-provincial conference where objection was taken to similar expressions. I wonder if it would not be possible instead to say that the whole thing belongs to the Canadian people and not to Her Majesty. I am completely against that.


Albert Béchard: There is no doubt that the hon. independentist member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is against that. What belongs to Her Majesty as far as the C.B.C. is concerned belongs to Her Majesty in right of Canada at the present time according to our constitution and it cannot be otherwise.
I think that the discussion could go on all night without getting anywhere with the speech by the hon. independentist member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Bona-venture might think so. He has just told us that Canada and Her Majesty were the same thing; therefore, he is a royalist of the old
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting days. He claims that Canada and Her Majesty are the same thing. I disagree.
This term gives rise to so many misunderstandings that I cannot accept it. Not too long ago, in the court of Quebec city, an individual was accused of having committed rape on a young girl. It was Her Majesty vs. Mr. So and So. The accused said: I do not know her. I never raped her. Yet, on the bill of his indictment, it was clearly written that Her Majesty was prosecuting him for a crime.
Here, it is said that everything will be the property of Her Majesty, and I protest. I am not here as a representative of Her Majesty, but as representative of the constituents of the riding of Lapointe, and when my constituents pay taxes, I do not want them to pay for things belonging to Her Majesty.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
independentist member what was the nature of the oath he took when he was elected to the House of Commons?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his question. I took it to Elizabeth II, Queen of England and also Queen of the Commonwealth. I am still prepared to be part of the Commonwealth, because until further order, it has not been proved harmful. I have no objection to Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, it is not what is said here. This clause provides that the immovables of the corporation, its electronic and other equipment, belong to Her Majesty, and I quote:
Property acquired by the Corporation is the property of Her Majesty and title thereto may be vested in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the Corporation.
I disagree on this point, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept such a thing. I am quite willing to pay taxes to enable the C.B.C. to acquire property, because it is doing a good job, I agree. I see that my friend, the hon. member for York-Humber, is turning red and is about to rise. But, after all, I live in Quebec and not in Great Britain. If I pay taxes, it is not to turn everything over to Her Majesty. I prefer our taxes to remain in Quebec and in Canada, because, after all, it is our money.
If the hon. member for Bonaventure tells me: Ah, it is the same thing, Her Majesty in the right of Canada. If it is the same thing let us say so. The Canadians who pay for the C.B.C. do not belong to the Queen. Her Majesty did not pay a penny for that, so we have no business giving it to her. I protest
6390	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and ask lor a vote on that, because I do not want the product of my taxes to go to the Queen.
This very afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I received the reply of the hon. member for Bonaventure to Question No. 863 on loans to England, on behalf of the Queen. In 1947, we loaned her an amount of $640 million which she has never reimbursed. She does not even pay interest and now the loan is worth $976 million. That country does not pay, it is in arrears. Well, if England does not pay, it does not follow that we should also give it the C.B.C. As for me, I protest; I am going to vote against that and I ask for a vote on this point.
Let us bring that back to Canada; let it belong to the Canadians or the Quebecers but let us stop giving everything we have to Her Majesty. No wonder we are poor and have nothing, we give everything away and we put it in the legislation. Long live the Queen. That will belong to Her Majesty.
I protest, Mr. Chairman, and I shall vote against it with both hands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 40 carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that since the hon. member for Lapointe voted against my amendment to clause 39, I cannot support him on clause 40. I can assure the committee that I realize it is selfevident that I cannot support him, and I do not need to explain my stand. When he states that he does not like paying his taxes to the Queen, I might say that being from Ontario I do not like paying my taxes to the Queen and then having her send my money down to Quebec in the form of equalization payments.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that we are not getting the money from the province of Ontario; it is rather the province of Quebec, according to the official statistics provided by the hon. Minister of Finance in 1963, that is paying for the rest of Canada. Some of it is sent first to the rest of Canada and, then, to the Queen.
I protest-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Shall clause 40 carry?

DEBATES	February 5. 196*


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, no. I am asking for the question to be put. I want to-know who is a royalist and who is a Canadian.


An hon. Member:: You are going to know.

Clause agreed to: Yeas, 55; nays, 1.
On clause 41-Acquisition and disposition of property.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister one question on this clause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, my records indicate that clause 41 was carried previously. Is this not correct?


Herman Maxwell Batten: That is not in conformity with the records at the table. Clause 41 was stood.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the minister a simple question in view of an interesting experience I had. First of all, I must say that when this debate is over I think she should receive the Order of Canada for patience far beyond the call of duty in the national interest.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Instead of that I am getting less popular.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Clause 41 reads, in part, as follows:
The corporation may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any real or personal property that the corporation deems necessary or convenient for carrying out its objects and may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of all or any part of any property acquired by it-
And so on.
It was recently brought to my attention what the C.B.C. in the field donated a quite valuable piece of property to some organization or persons. I understood that crown corporations had to declare any surplus they had and turn the surplus over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation before it was sold. Would the minister explain to me at what level in the management of the C.B.C. authorization is required for persons in the field to give away property of the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot answer that. This provision is substantially the same as the one in the 1958 act. However, since it is the corporation which may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of property,
'February 5, 1968

then it would have to be, if not initiated by someone at the lower level, at least approved by the corporation. The corporation in that case acts through the board and its senior officer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to,______________________-
Clause 42 agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 43 has already been [DOT]carried.
Clause 44 agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 45 has already been carried.
On clause 46-C.B.C. to be proprietary corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this clause and the one following it have created apparently a good deal of misunderstanding in connection with the financial provisions of the C.B.C. Since the two clauses are interrelated perhaps I might deal with them together; if not, I will deal with each individually.
The provision in the second of the two clauses is one for a five year operating budget for the C.B.C., but contrary to what seems to be the popular belief that would not in any way commit parliament to providing the C.B.C. with a five year grant.
It should not be forgotten that every single investigating body has recommended the essential importance of providing the C.B.C. with long term operational financing. That was the view that was also supported by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts after it considered the white paper in which the government had said it proposed five year financing. It was and it still remains the intention of the government to submit a special financing bill to parliament, and that would be based on a formula. The formula has yet to be worked out.
Perhaps I should say something about the kind of formula that is contemplated. The Fowler committee recommended that the number of television households in Canada should be used as an index-so many dollars per household with television. It has also been suggested that it might be in the nature of a per capita grant based on total Canadian population.
The financing legislation, according to whichever formula it adopts, would stipulate that the operating requirements of the C.B.C. would have to be met by payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of so much per

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting capita or per television household, or whatever the formula was. That amount would have to be paid out year by year in each of the fiscal years covered by the special financing act.
Unless and until that kind of special act is passed by this house and the other place, the C.B.C. will continue to have its operating requirements met on an annual basis through the normal estimates and appropriations procedures, even notwithstanding that clauses 46 and 47, as printed in this bill, were to pass.
With respect to capital budgets, clause 46 (1) provides that the corporation is a proprietary corporation within the meaning and for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. Under that act all proprietary corporations are required to submit an annual capital budget, and the C.B.C., no less than others, would have to meet this requirement.
Clause 47 (1) would not nullify this requirement, since it refers only to a capital program and not to a capital budget. It is virtually identical, in effect, with section 35 (2) of the 1958 act. Its purpose, now as before, is to provide a framework for assessing the probable effects of capital expansion on the operating requirements of the corporation, and it is in no sense to be regarded as providing for a five year capital budget.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, both in the committee and outside the chamber several hon. members have expressed very strong opposition to the idea of long term financing for the C.B.C., and it seems to me that there is very little advantage, after the length of time we have now spent discussing the various provisions of this bill, to waste further time arguing about a clause which does not make any real provision for payment of money to the C.B.C. It is already clear that the C.B.C will have to be financed in the customary way for the fiscal year 1968-69, because they are so far along in their financing, and there will be an opportunity for discussion after the estimates have been presented.
Next session the government will bring forward a C.B.C. financing bill. This will be after the new management has had an opportunity to review the plans of the corporation. Parliament will then have an opportunity to give full consideration to whether or not long term financing would indeed be in the public interest. I want to make it quite clear that it is still the government's intention to propose long term financing, not for this year but for the period thereafter.
February 5, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We should facilitate the progress of this debate if clauses 46 and 47 were to be dealt with separately. If that were done it would be necessary to delete clause 46(1), and I can explain why that is. Clause 46(1) says that the corporation is a proprietary corporation within the meaning and for the purpose of the Financial Administration Act. A proprietary corporation generally has an assured source of income. It has to submit an annual capital budget but does not have to submit an annual operating budget, since its expenditures are met from its assured revenues.
If long term financing were approved for the C.B.C., the corporation would have an assured statutory income; but until parliament has approved a long term formula for operational requirements, it is clearly necessary for the corporation to continue to submit an annual operating budget. Deleting clause 46(1) would enable us to treat the C.B.C. as an agency of the corporation until parliament has approved long term financing; and agency corporations are required, under the Financial Administration Act, to submit an annual capital budget and an annual operating budget.
Consequent on that clause 47 would have to be deleted; and I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, is now prepared to move certain amendments with respect to clauses 46(1) and 47.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the committee is prepared to accept changes to both clauses in the same amendment I move:
That Bill C-163 be amended by deleting clause 46(1) and clause 47 and renumbering subsequent paragraphs and clauses accordingly.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It will be better to deal with clause 46(1), and then with clause 47 when we come to it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, in view of the minister's remarks I should indicate that the official opposition agrees to withdrawing or deleting clause 46(1) and clause 47. Clause 47 provided for a five-year program and it was felt that it would be unfair to have that. Had a five-year program been approved the budget would have had to make provision for it. Members of the opposition felt that this was too long a period for the spending estimates of the C.B.C. not to be examined in parliament. Members of the committee requested that this be withdrawn, and we thank the minister for co-operating.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment to clause 46 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 46 as amended agreed to.
On clause 47-Five-year capital program.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It has been moved by Mr. Robichaud that clause 47 of Bill C-163 be deleted and the subsequent paragraphs be renumbered. That amendment has been agreed to, and clause 47 is thereby deleted.
Clauses 48 (renumbered 47) and 49 (renumbered 48) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 50 has been carried.
Clause 51 (renumbered 50) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clauses 52 and 53 have been carried.
Clause 54 (renumbered 53) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clauses 55 to 60 inclusive have been carried.
Clauses 61 (renumbered 60) and 62 (renumbered 61) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 63 has been carried.
Clause 64 (renumbered 63) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clauses 65, 66 and 67 have been carried and Schedules A and B have been carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is on his way down to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish the question to be put now?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robichaud, for the Minister of Finance, moves the second reading of Bill C-191, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Fulion:: We should like a statement from the minister in connection with this bill. It is some time since the budget resolution was before us. The relation between this bill, the budget resolution and the Kennedy round should be explained before we carry this item. The opposition is disposed to be cooperative and we are prepared to wait for the minister, realizing that this has come up at
February 5, 1968



short notice, but we are not prepared to carry the motion in the absence of any statement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A few moments ago the Minister of Finance was informed that this bill was coming before the house, and he is on his way here.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: At this point I take it the clock has stopped and that Hansard is not reporting. I wish to thank all hon. members, in proportion as they think they are entitled, for the co-operation shown during what I hope will prove to be the last legislation that I see through the parliament of Canada. While we were discussing that long and interesting bill many hon. members put forward their legitimate views, sometimes very vigorously, and while I did not always keep my temperature below whatever is boiling point at this altitude above sea level, I have tried to improve over the years, and once again I should like to thank hon. members on both sides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is there any significance in the fact that the Secretary of State has made this speech from the Prime Minister's seat in the house?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not yet.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 wonder if I might offer a suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think we are all agreed that we are about a day or two ahead of where we thought we would be. There are some very important things on various television programs tonight and perhaps it would not be amiss if we were to call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to call it ten o'clock?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member has gone to get some papers from his office with respect to the Fish Inspection Act and I think we should wait until he returns. We would prefer to wait a few moments. It is a very short, simple bill, and after dealing with it we could then consider whether to call it ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In anticipation of that will someone check to see if ministers who will be answering questions on the ten o'clock show will be here?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if the house is willing to take Bill S-27 I shall have very little to say on it. It is a minor bill, and I
Excise Tax Act
suggest that we revert to item No. 52 on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment the house has before it for consideration second reading of the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). There would have to be unanimous consent to stand that bill until later this day, following consideration of the bill to which the Minister of Fisheries has just referred.


Mr. Monleiih:: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is entering the chamber it might be advisable to carry on with the bill in his name.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jay Waldo Monteith: Before commencing with the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Finance perhaps the house leader could give us the business for tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The business for tomorrow will be the bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, as announced on Friday night.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Those three bills?


George James McIlraith: Yes, the three bills.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does the minister expect these three bills to take the full day?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hope they will not take all day. Perhaps before the house rises tonight I could give further information.



EXCISE TAX ACT

Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should put the motion again.


Mitchell William Sharp: moved the second reading of Bill No. C-191, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the house for reverting to this business. I came over as quickly as I could from a reception at His Excellency's in honour of the prime ministers of the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Premiers.


Mitchell William Sharp: Premiers ministres. This bill is founded on the resolutions that have already

February 5, 1968
Excise Tax Act
been approved by the house. It is essentially a very simple bill. I really have nothing to say by way of introduction on second reading but I would be very happy to answer questions when we get into committee and deal with the various clauses.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that it is a very simple bill carrying out the terms of the resolutions. We have nothing to say on it at this moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with the pronouncement that has been made, as I understand it, that the words "or pharmaceutical" are being deleted from the Excise Tax Act. I understand this is being done to exclude excise tax being charged on drugs. Yet a charge was made in the house the other day, and substantiated in the press, that the price of drugs are paying the same amount of there has been an increase in the price equal to the reduction in the excise tax. I think the minister should have something to say about this situation. This is no advantage to the Canadian taxpayer who was given this exemption, when at the same time the users of drugs are paying the same amount of money. There seems to be something wrong with the method of removing excise tax from pharmaceutical products, if this does not result in a reduction in the price of drugs.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
1 am sure that all Canadians were sympathetic with the minister's intention in removing the sales tax from these drugs and pharmaceuticals. However, if the result to the consumer is not a reduced price for drugs I can see very little advantage in the passage of legislation of this type. We have in effect eliminated any tax that was obtainable from this source and at the same time have not provided the protection which would ensure that the reduction in the tax would be passed on in the form of a benefit to the consumer. I would think the minister would agree, if this is the result of what has happened, that this has not been advantageous from his point of view and certainly must not be of any advantage to the consumer who buys these drugs and finds that the price is identical. In fact there is a suggestion that within a day or two one of the companies will raise its prices in an amount greater than the reduction in respect of the sales tax. I would therefore
[Mr. Sharp.}
think the minister owes the house an explanation concerning whether or not some further steps will be taken to ensure that this saving is passed on to those who unfortunately must consume drugs in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who spoke on second reading of this bill referred to the effect of the removal of the sales tax on the price of drug products. In fact it has had a significant effect upon the price of drugs. Although I know of cases where the full advantage may not have been passed on, because we have no way to ensure that reductions in taxes are in fact passed on, from the information provided by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics I believe that the removal of sales tax on drugs did result in a significant reduction in the index of the prices of drugs. It is the intention of the government, of course, through amendments to other legislation under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Registrar General to take action which will promote competition in respect of the price of drugs, and therefore effect as large a reduction as can be achieved.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Special excise tax on wines.
William Arnold Peters: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the question asked by the hon. member, may I say that the purpose of clause 3 is to implement the November 30 budget resolution, the general purpose of which was to increase the price of wines in about the same proportion
February 5, 1968

as the increase in respect of spirits and beer. We did not look upon this as a major revenue source. We simply wished to keep the general increase in taxes proportionate over all in respect of beer, wine and spirits.
[Translation]__ _ _

;


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a simple question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
How is it that following an increase of barely a few cents per gallon in the price of imported wines, certain liquor commissions increased their prices by about 7 per cent? What is the reason for such a price increase in the retail sale of wines?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I may say that while I was in a liquor store in Toronto about Christmas time I met a person who was very much involved in the provincial side of this undertaking. He was very glad that the federal government had given the lead, because it enabled the provincial government to raise a good deal more revenue from the sale of liquor and wines; I am not quite sure about beer. The provincial governments in some provinces at least took advantage of the occasion to make an adjustment in prices which they would have had to accept the full responsibility for had we not brought forward an increase in the taxes in advance.


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


Gilles Grégoire: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for the elimination, through refund, of the tax on building materials in instances where university student housing is constructed by an agency or organization that is wholly owned by the crown in the right of any province. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any significant number of representations from university student organizations asking that a similar provision be made with regard to student housing constructed by student organizations on their own behalf. Is there some good practical reason it was deemed fit to make this apply exclusively to corporations owned by the crown in the right of the province?
Excise Tax Act
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the hon. member who asked the question that I have received many representations from organizations other than those mentioned in the clause, and they are under consideration. They have raised difficult problems in respect of distinguishing between student residences which may be organized on a co-operative basis and those which may not be wholly ancillary to the provisions of educational facilities. They also raised questions as to the difference of treatment between such organizations and those which provide housing for elderly people, or perhaps for other very good purposes. That is why the government did not feel at this time it should go any further than this present bill. I can assure the hon. member that these representations are under very careful consideration.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Payments to certain establishments.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, clause 7 refers to refunding of taxes in connection with the provision of laundry and cleaning services, or linen supply services in hospital construction. This will be very welcome to those people involved in hospital administration. I have two questions to pose to the minister. The bill suggests that if the tax has been paid within two years and an application has been made for refund, it will be made. Does this mean that those institutions which have completed construction within two years prior to the passage of this bill will be entitled to the refund, and will a project that is now under way in respect of which a tax has been paid on some of the materials be eligible for a tax refund?
What is the minister's definition of the term ''bona fide public hospitals"? Does this term preclude hospitals owned by nursing sister orders from being eligible for the refund, or does it include all hospitals eligible for grants directly or indirectly from the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the first question is to be found in subclause (2) of clause 13 of the bill which reads:
Sections 6 and 7 of this act shall be deemed to have come into force on June 2, 1967, and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein, whether purchased before or after that date.
I think that clarifies that point. I should like to consult with my officials with regard

February 5, 1968
Excise Tax Act
to the second question. This is rather difficult to answer on the spur of the moment. I should point out that the wording of the bill, "bona fide public hospitals", refers to those certified as such by the Department of National Health and Welfare. These words have been in the act for some time. This is not something new. I cannot say whether an individual case such as my hon. friend has in mind would qualify. I should think that in a general way all hospitals that are operated by orders would be included. I am afraid I cannot say anything more than that in answer to the question; but these hospitals are certified by the Department of National Health and Welfare and I am sure lists of them can be obtained.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I am not suggesting that the minister is trying to pass the question off, but I think there is a basic philosophy involved here. It is well known to many hospital administrations that there are a great number of hospitals in this country owned by nursing sister orders. They should not be referred to as particular instances because they are hospitals which are open to the public, although operated in such a way it is almost impossible to show them in a category separate from publicly-owned hospitals. Perhaps I can narrow the question. Can the minister say whether the words "public hospitals" mean those hospitals which are open to patients of the general public, or do they mean publicly-owned hospitals as opposed to privately-owned hospitals? This is such an important matter I think it should stand until the minister finds out from the Department of National Health and Welfare just what the situation is in connection with this particular type of hospital.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it is necessary to stand the clause for the purpose of answering this question, because these words have been in the act for a long time. If any problems exist they have existed for a long time. We are not creating any new problems by this wording; we are simply using the definition already contained in the act in respect of the kind of laundry establishments that would be exempt from the payment of tax. Any questions the hon. member has about this are questions that could have been asked in connection with the existing legislation. This does not alter the impact of the tax.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

On clause 10.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct the minister's attention to the implied contradiction between the policy of the Department of Finance and that of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This clause reads in part:
Cigarettes and manufactured tobacco:
(a)	For each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package . .. three cents;
(b)	Manufactured tobacco, including snuff, but not including cigars and cigarettes .. . ninety cents per pound.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is carrying on a campaign to acquaint Canadian people with the danger of smoking cigarettes and the possibility of incurring cancer. At the same time the department has admitted that it has not been proved that cancer results from the smoking of pipe tobacco. Is there not some contradiction in these policies of the two departments, and cannot the minister do something to influence the Department of National Health and Welfare to campaign for a reduction of cigarette smoking by seeing that people smoking pipes pay a lesser tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to say to the hon. gentleman that I am a virtuous smoker of cigars. I do not think, for that reason, that I should be encouraged to smoke any more than I do. The concern of this particular clause is only one in respect of revenue. We are not trying to make a judgment regarding the morals or health of those who smoke.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not as the Department of Finance.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not as the Department of Finance. I think it is sufficient for the Minister of Finance to be concerned about revenues, not about the morals or the health of the population. I should think this is something which ought to be more the concern of the Department of National Health and Welfare. If they of course come to the view that I should use taxation for the purpose of promoting either morals or health, I should be very willing to listen; but I have not had any representations of that kind so I have been concerned only with the raising of revenues.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay West has very clearly pointed out the problem in this respect. This is an area in which the minister could have helped out the Department of National Health and
February 5, 1968

Welfare in its campaign against smoking cigarettes. When Walter Harris was minister of finance he imposed a tax and found that he cut down the revenue because it stopped people smoking. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Kootenay West and would dike to see the minister get in touch with the Department of National Health and Welfare with a view to increasing the tax until it is an effective bar to people smoking.
There should be some meeting of minds in this respect. The Department of National Health and Welfare, one department of government, is carrying on a campaign to cut down smoking, and using advertising and all other means at its disposal, but the Minister of Finance is not aiding, abetting or helping them in any way by increasing the tax to a level that will discourage people from smoking. The hon. member for Kootenay West is on the right track. There should have been consultation on a matter as important as cigarette smoking by the general public.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the debate but I would point out that there are two contradictory objectives here. If I impose a tax that is too high, I will not collect any revenue. I was just imposing enough to be able to increase the revenue. That is the sole purpose of the tax imposed here.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-
Mr. McIntosh:: 
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the submission made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, while the minister is perhaps still pondering the implications of the problem. It seems to me that in considering excise tax bills such as this our attention is often directed to matters of precise and small detail.
With regard to clause 111 say to the minister that it seems a little inconsistent or incongruous that we should be making provisions for the exemption from sales tax of one class and kind of farm wagon which, as the hon. member has pointed out, really does not have very much significance in other parts of the country. Reference is made in this clause to the exemption of farm sleds from sales tax. I doubt whether this is a significant matter in many parts of the country. It may be in the Kootenays or Timiskaming, in northern Ontario, but certainly in large parts of the country it is not really significant.
I plead with the minister to give serious consideration to the request, which I am sure he has received on numerous occasions in the past two years, for clarification on the exemptability of farm steel truck boxes, and also that piece of equipment known as a hydraulic hoist, which is part of a farm truck box that is used in hauling grain. I am sure the minister is well aware of this question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am familiar to
some extent with this subject because representations have from time to time been made both to me and the Minister of National Revenue. I would point out to both hon. gentlemen who have spoken, however, that this

February 5, 1968
Excise Tax Act
amendment does nothing except add two words, namely, "parts therefor". It does not change anything else in the act. The section would read:
Farm wagons, including four-wheeled farm wagons equipped to be tractor drawn and farm sleds; parts therefor and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof.
Those words were there before, and all that has been added is "parts therefor" in connection with farm wagons. I am not in a position to deal with the technical point raised with regard to the definition of "farm wagons". All I can say to my hon. friends is that I will take their remarks as a representation for the next budget, when I will see that this matter is looked at again.
I was going to ask my hon. friend who is now responsible for housing whether he has anything to say about this question, but he says he is now free of responsibility for technical amendments and discussions in such matters as the Excise Tax Act. However, I can assure the hon. members that we will take this question into account when we are looking at the technical amendments for the next budget.


Mr. Rapp:: Mention it when you go out west.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see, then, why this clause is in the bill at the present time, unless it is to protect some special interest. When I discussed this question previously with one of the departments I was told that the word "wagon" when interpreted in the French language meant "lorry" and also "truck". But to get the two departments to agree on this matter is very difficult. In fact I have been unable to do so.
If the minister has gone to the trouble of changing the act to add just two words, surely he can go a little further and add the words "and trucks". There is nothing wrong with that unless, as I say, this is a special consideration for one specific type of product.
I was given by the department a copy of a picture which they said was a farm wagon manufactured by a particular company. If this amendment is to protect that type of transaction, I am opposed to it. In other words, in my opinion this clause is discriminatory. I suggest that the minister would be quite in order in allowing us to add the two words "and trucks" to the clause. This would completely solve our problem. It would

require just a small amendment on the minister's part. If the amendment is not accepted, I cannot support the bill with this clause in it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, it is exactly because of the difficulty with regard to trucks that there has been some controversy in this matter. It was not the intention of the government to make such a broad change in the list of exemptions. This amendment is an addition of the words, "and parts thereof". It is only a change to provide an exception for parts for farm wagons and farm sleds which was inadvertently omitted when the method of exempting farm wagons and sleds was changed from a tariff item to a specific reference in this item in schedule III in 1963. It was in response to representations that the words "and parts thereof" have been added. It is a relieving section which does not add any tax. It relieves parts of farm wagons and sleds from the tax, and I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to oppose that.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: All I am asking is that the same provision be applied to farm truck boxes. Representations were made at that time or perhaps prior to the time representations were made with regard to these wagon boxes. We are not saying that truck boxes are a part of a truck. They are not made by the people who manufacture trucks. They are essential, particularly in the west, when there is so much rail line abandonment. Farmers have to haul gas and oil in the same box in which they haul grain. If it is a wooden box, then the oil seeps into the wood and it is difficult to get it out. If you have a steel truck box, it can be washed out easily. This is all we are asking for. Perhaps if the minister could insert the words "truck boxes", that would satisfy me for the time being.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only repeat what I said before, Mr. Chairman. We will look at the representations made by the hon. gentleman. It is not my intention to amend the law in this way without further examination of the consequences. While I am not familiar with the details, I know that this question has been argued on a number of occasions. I hesitate very much to propose this change in the House of Commons without examining all the consequences. It is a very complicated question, and I will take the hon. gentleman's views into account when we are preparing the next amendment to this act.
February 5, 19B8


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not want to interfere with the hon. gentleman's argument, but the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said earlier he had been making these representations for some time. His representations tonight may well be taken as just one more representation to be added to previous representations, and they all may receive the same treatment. I suggest there should be something a little more firm from the minister before we accept his assurance.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I was just going to add that the answer I received from the minister tonight was similar to the answer I received in 1963, or whatever year it was.


Edgar John Benson: 1962.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister of finance of that day, who is not in the house this evening, gave me the same answer. He said he was going to look into it. Now, the addition of farm truck boxes does not seem far reaching. If the minister can explain why the problem is so involved, perhaps I can go along with him. Farm truck boxes have nothing to do with trucks. This is all I am asking. It is a steel truck box or steel wagon box. If the interpretation of the word "wagon" includes "lorry" as it does in French, then let us take that. As I said before, let the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue get together on what they mean in the wording of these tariff items.
The reference is to farm equipment, n.o.p., and the item could be taken in there. It could be taken in under an end user's certificate, or in any way the department wished, as long as the same privilege is given to western farmers as is given to the farmers who use these wagon boxes. As the hon. member for Springfield said, we do not know who uses these wagon boxes. I was under the impression a specific company was making these specific boxes for a specific purpose. I see one minister shaking his head, but I say that because I was provided with a picture of it. It was a patented box, and I do not see why that company should receive this type of protection.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if the farm wagons referred to here cover hydraulic farm wagons with grain boxes, all in one unit? Would the exception apply to things like that?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, as a former minister of national revenue, I should like to say that any minister who would try to
Excise Tax Act
answer a definition of this kind in the house without the advice of his officials as to what is specifically meant by "farm wagons", would be very foolish indeed. This has been a perplexing problem, and a problem that has been considered over a long period of time. It is a problem the department has tried to resolve, and we do the best we can for the western farmers, as we want to do. You have to come within the legislation as it is written, and changes have been made from time to time. They have all been relieving amendments in order to assist the farmers of western Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has said how difficult it is for a minister to explain this provision. If he would reflect for a moment, he would realize how difficult it is for a backbencher to try to convince the officials or ministers on this point, and try to get for the farmers of his area the same exemption as that enjoyed by the farmers of some other area. It is not difficult to understand what a steel truck box is or the purpose of it. It was the intent of parliament when this tariff item was inserted, since the words "not otherwise provided" appear in it, to cover farm wagon boxes. The item was put in years ago, and it has not been changed. We have made these representations, as has been said, since 1962 or 1963, and yet we received the same answer. Nothing has been done as yet. How are we going to get the change made?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that during the period I was Minister of National Revenue, which was several years, I do not recall having one letter from my hon. friend in this regard. I do not ever recall the hon. member coming in to see me and trying to define this thing or trying to help people in particular areas in order that all are treated the same. I can assure hon. members opposite that all the time I was Minister of National Revenue my door was always open. However, during the past three or four years I cannot recall my hon. friend coming in to set out the problem.
I cannot remember the hon. member asking the Department of National Revenue to make an interpretation so all people would be treated equally. I am sure the new Minister of National Revenue would be just as pleased as I would have been to have the hon. member, not merely get up and say something in the house about it, but come in and see the minister and his officials in an attempt to have a definition of what a farm box is, so we may

February 5, 1968
Excise Tax Act
treat all people across the country exactly the same.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If the minister would go back to his files and get caught up on what happened in his department before he took over, he would find a file in his department at least three inches thick containing notations that I had been in to see the minister. If he would look through Hansard he would find that the last time this subject was discussed, when the hon. member for Davenport was Minister of Finance, two or three hours of the time of the house were taken up. If the deputy minister is asked, the minister would find I did spend two or three days with a constituent of mine, running between the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Finance trying to get agreement on what had been set out in the tariff item. Each department would say, "That is not the way we interpret it."
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I do not know what more I can do as a backbencher to impress upon the ministers of these departments that there is a need here. This request has been repeated on several occasions. It has been a matter of correspondence between myself and other members and their constituent farmers, and I think it was the intent of parliament to exempt these things from tax. I think it is the minister's intent at the moment to exempt them from tax. Why the officials of the department have not brought this to the attention of the new minister is beyond me because there are many letters on file in connection with the requests that have been made.
I do not know how long we will have to sit here and wait after the minister says tonight, as ministers have said for years, that he will have to give this matter consideration. I do not know through what other process we in the House of Commons can go in order to bring about this change. I do not think there is any argument about it at all.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I had no file on this question. I have spoken to my hon. friend about it once or twice. If there were files in the departments of ministers of the former government, as he said-


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were ministers before you in your government. You have not been minister ever since 1963.


Edgar John Benson: The minister prior to me turned over his files, and there was no such correspondence. The hon. member-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege; the minister is trying to misrepresent the situation. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek mentioned that it was the hon. member for Davenport who was minister of finance at the time. The minister is trying to misrepresent things.


Edgar John Benson: I am, honestly, not trying to misrepresent anything, Mr. Chairman. I was minister of national revenue, not minister of finance. I simply said that there was no large file on this matter, as far as I was concerned.
I think the way to resolve this is for my hon. friend to meet with the present Minister of National Revenue, to sit down with him and thrash it out. Then if the hon. member does not like the solution he can raise a fuss in the house about it. I am sure that the present Minister of National Revenue, as all ministers of national revenue in this government, will have his office open at all times to hon. members who wish to make representations. They will be considered, and if the hon. member is not happy with the solution he can bring the question up again and raise a fuss. But I can honestly say that I had no large file on this, and the only time it was raised when I was minister was when my hon. friend raised it with me casually.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct an impression that the hon. member for Springfield may have given the minister when he suggested that farm sleighs drawn by tractors were unusual in his experience. These are used a great deal in the country from which I come. We do not farm horizontally; we farm some of our land at an angle of 45 degrees, but we use two types of farm sled drawn by tractors. One is used in the winter, with the ordinary type of shoeing for use on snow. Then there is another more expensive kind that can be used in the summer, and it has cast iron runners to enable it to run over earth satisfactorily. It is a great advantage to the farmers in my district to have the act provide that farm sleighs drawn by tractors are exempt from this tax.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I want simply to say that I am not surprised at what the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said. He insisted that he did make representations to the minister. The former minister of national revenue was equally insistent that he
February 5, 1968

Excise Tax Act
received no large number of representations on this subject. I would be very surprised if there were not at least a significant number because quite a number of farmers in western Canada, even in my own area, have expressed some dissatisfaction with the current status of farm truck boxes so far as sales tax is concerned. So obviously representations have been made.
I for one have made representations to the minister's department. I do not recall offhand whether I made representations directly to the minister or to someone in his department, but it was certainly to the department. As I recall, the reply I received was not very helpful. I judged from the contents that it was the intention of certain officials in the department to give consideration to my request that farm truck boxes of steel type be declared exempt from the application of this sales tax.
Since it is almost ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be helpful to the minister to hold this clause over until the next day's business, by which time, and without any great inconvenience to him, he might be able to report back to the committee and indicate in more specific terms whether or not it would be feasible and practical to include farm truck boxes within the provisions of the clause now before the committee.
The minister has said that this request may have certain far reaching implications. I, like the hon. member who has already spoken, find this difficult to conceive of, inasmuch as reference is already made here to farm wagons or parts thereof, which I take to mean farm wagon boxes. So just by a small extension of wording and redrafting, farm truck boxes could be included. The distinction between large farm wagon boxes and farm truck boxes is not really that great.
The minister has undertaken to look at this, and I assume that at the same time he will also check into the reasonableness or feasibility of the request that farm truck boxes hydraulic hoists be considered in the same light, as being exempt from the sales tax that normally applies.
I notice it is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I am wondering whether the minister is agreeable to take a look at this question between now and the next session of the committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned I would be very happy to ask them for a ruling. If that is what the committee wants I
undertake to get a ruling. I rather suspect though that if it is not in accordance with what the hon. member wants, he will want the act amended. If that is his purpose, it would take some time. However, if he just wants a ruling I will certainly give an undertaking that the Department of National Revenue will give one.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, would it not be possible to ascertain the implications, here? I am sympathetic to the minister and appreciate the advice to him of the former minister of national revenue, not to make a snap decision on this matter. I do not know how many of these boxes are imported into the country or how many wagons are being used, and I imagine the minister does not either.
I suggest that he take a look not only at the terminology, at what is meant by a farm wagon and whether boxes used on the back of a wagon for hauling grain are included, but also at the implications of this, if he is inclined to include boxes. If not too much change to the tax structure is involved, then it might be advisable to make the decision that will inevitably be necessary at some time.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Since there will be another opportunity fairly soon to look at this matter and since there will probably be a budget this spring, I hope hon. members will give the minister an opportunity of considering this carefully and bringing forward, if he finds he can, suitable amendments. I really think, considering that I am not amending the act except to add the words "and parts thereof", that it is unreasonable that I should be expected to bring in an amendment on a matter which, had it been simple, would have been done some time ago.
I cannot give the undertaking that, come the next budget, the exemption will be extended, but I will give very careful consideration to the amendments, to clarify the meaning. I cannot say that the exemption will be extended in the way suggested here because I do not know what the implications are.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest that tomorrow would be the ideal time to give an explanation as to why that has not been done.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, before we conclude our proceedings I wish to ask the minister to bring in a definition of "farm wagons" tomorrow, so that we shall know where we stand with respect to amendments
February S, 1968
6402	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to the legislation or other amendments that may be proposed. No doubt other amendments will be needed to fulfil our expectations.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the house will be asked to consider item No. 53 on today's order paper, the bill to amend the Excise Tax Act; item No. 54, the bill to amend the Excise Act; item No. 55, the bill to amend the Income Tax Act; item No. 48, the bill to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act; item No. 47, the bill to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act; item No. 52, the bill to amend the Fish Inspection Act; item No. 49, the bill to provide for the dissolution of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation; item No. 50, the bill to amend the Defence Production Act and item No. 51, the bill to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. The items will not necessarily be considered in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about tomorrow night?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

['Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) upon his concern, and also the hon. members for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) who have made representations and have shown their concern for the pleas of the people in this condition.\nMr. Speaker, the Polish Political Ex-Prisoners Association and the Canadian Polish Congress have made representations at several times urging that Canada enter into an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany for the benefit of persons who were persecuted by the nazis during world war II. As these persons came to Canada only after world war II, they were not Canadians at the time of persecution and so were not eligible for awards from the Canadian war claims fund. In so far as a bilateral agreement with West Germany is concerned, there is a real legal\nDEBATES\tFebruary 5, 1968\ndifficulty involved since Canada has no standing in international law to represent these persons with respect to claims which arose before they became Canadians. Furthermore, the Bonn Agreements of 1952, and the fact that no peace treaty has ever been signed with Germany, also present difficulties.\nI am convinced that in these circumstances the government can be of most assistance to these persons by making informal approaches to the German authorities and using our good office where appropriate in individual cases. This is the policy which has long been followed by this department. Our embassy in Bonn has had discussions on this matter with the German authorities on a number of occasions. The German authorities are fully aware of the desire of the Canadian government that they take as forthright an attitude as possible on the question of indemnification.\nMoreover, our representative on the executive committee of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has spoken on this question a number of times. It should be noted, however, that West Germany has endeavoured to meet its responsibilities. The relevant West German legislation was liberalized in 1965 and a second fund was established with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1967 for the benefit of persons who had not been indemnified along the lines advocated by Canada and other interested nations. We shall of course continue to pursue with the West German authorities the possibility of any further measures which may be feasible.\nI should like to assure the house that the Canadian government takes this question very seriously and makes every effort to assist these unfortunate persons who have suffered through no fault of their own from the acts of the nazi regime. We shall continue to use every opportunity to assist these people within the limits imposed by international law.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.', 'Tuesday, February 6, 1968']
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to reconsider the government's refusal to share in meeting the extra expenses involved in giving special English classes to immigrant children. I took advantage of the rules to raise this matter again, as it is of great importance. The problem to which I drew attention has become acute in Toronto where, according to the chairman of the board of education, out of
29.000	immigrant children who need help only
11.000	are getting it. But it is a serious one in


all major Canadian cities; I mention specifically the city of Montreal. It is my opinion that the government has been shirking its responsibilities in this field and sheltering beneath the umbrella of a false constitutional issue.
What are the facts? The Canadian government is responsible for immigration. It brings to this country thousands of skilled and other immigrants and in order to persuade these immigrants to come here, as well as on grounds of humanity and family considerations, it necessarily brings the children of those immigrants, most of whom go to our major cities. In the white paper on immigration in 1966 the government admitted responsibility for immigrants after they come to Canada, in the following words:
People who come to Canada should receive the kind of services they need to start productive employment as soon as possible. They may need language training.
A little later we find this:
Sufficient financial and personal resources will be made available to ensure that no immigrant may lack any help he may want in getting established.
As a matter of fact, the department of immigration does assist in providing English classes for adult immigrants. But when it comes to classes for children, the answer of the government is, no. In other words, children with special problems in acquiring sufficient English to fit successfully into our normal school system are perhaps being kept out of future productive employment or even handicapped for life.
What is the excuse? The excuse is that education is a provincial subject and that therefore the federal government cannot touch it. I agree that education is a provincial subject, but in the light of its responsibility toward immigrants it is perfectly proper and possible for the government to meet the special needs of immigrants before they move into the main stream of education.
I challenge the minister, or whoever is to reply, to tell us that Indian children and the children of servicemen serving overseas are not supported by the federal government, notwithstanding the so-called constitutional barrier. I assert that the only bar to helping these children is an imaginary and false constitutional difficulty. These children are in effect wards of the federal government. They have been invited to Canada and permitted to enter in conformity with federal policy. I call on the minister in the name of common sense, in the name of the basic immigration policies
February 5, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6403
of this government and in the name of basic fairness to those concerned, to reconsider his policy in respect to these immigrant children.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not feel I am sufficiently well-informed on the subject to reply -adequately- to the-representations made by the hon. member but I will bring his remarks to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the hon. gentleman will agree, this particular minister is certainly not lacking in concern when it comes to matters of this kind.
I understand, however, that he has some doubt about the question of responsibility and jurisdiction, and that he has been in touch with the minister of education for Ontario. I am not sure what form these representations have taken, but it would not be because the minister himself does not recognize the human problem involved, or anything of that kind. He might feel the matter could be handled more effectively by provincial governments rather than by the federal government.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In these matters it is the results that count. It is better to work through the responsible government than to deal in a way that would only raise questions in the future. The main problem involved here is to see that these children are educated. I am sure that with this my hon. friend would agree.



Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, throughout the years, to my knowledge during the last 15 years at least, members on all sides of the house have received representations and letters from the representatives of various national groups in Canada who prior to coming to this country suffered in nazi concentration camps. I have a great deal of sympathy for these people because of what they have suffered. I think they are in a similar category to all other persons who suffered in these camps.
I have heard from them in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Quite recently I received another letter signed by the chairman and the secretary general of the Polish Political Ex-Prisoners Association in Canada, Inc., of 1087 Queen street west, Toronto 3, and it puts the question forward with more
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion logic and sequence than I could manage in seven minutes. It reads:
Dear Member:
Twenty-two years have passed since the survivors of Nazi concentration camps were set free by the Allied armies. Many of them, due to the fact that their homelands were ruled by communist dictatorship, remained in western Europe, and eventually found their way to Canada, where they have established new homes, acquired Canadian citizenship and contribute to the development of this country.
The injury inflicted on many of them, however, has never been made good. The work of the Canadian War Commission, which concluded its activities before the bulk of the new Canadians arrived, has not benefited them at all. The German authorities, while in principle professing that every injury would be compensated, have only provided compensation for persons persecuted because of race or religion, while those persecuted for reason of nationality were promised only greatly reduced benefits, provided they were refugees on October 1st 1953 and provided that they suffered at least a 25 per cent disability. In practice one per cent of the claimants in this category has been in receipt of their meagre pensions so far.
For over 15 years the Canadian-Polish organizations and individuals have made representations to the successive Canadian administrations, bringing to the government's attention the plight of persons in positions who, due to hardship suffered and disabilities acquired during their incarceration are already, or likely to become, charges of the Canadian welfare organizations and a substantial burden to the taxpayer. It is only reasonable to expect that the country which perpetrated the atrocities and crimes ought to compensate the victims. As we have indicated, the results have been far from satisfactory.
In March 1965, a brief was submitted to the Prime Minister through the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister for External Affairs, by the delegation of the Polish Political Ex-Prisoners Inc., which represents over 1,300 persons (of 15 different nationalities, but the majority of which are of Polish origin) asking the government to take steps toward the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Germany, and to obtain a lump sum payment in settlement of the claims by Canadian citizens or residents, who have not at all, or inadequately, been compensated by the German authorities.
The letter concludes:
As Canadian citizens we former prisoners of Nazi death camps are, in theory, entitled to all the privileges of a born Canadian, but in practice we are deprived of the protection of the Canadian government. As people who have fought and suffered for the Allied cause longer and more extensively than any others, we take the liberty of soliciting your support for our just claims.
The association demands that the administration:-
(1)	Either concludes a bilateral agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany for the compensation for all Canadian citizens and residents who have suffered persecution but have not been properly compensated or-
(2)	Enacts legislation establishing a special Canadian agency to deal with such persons and award
6404	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion them pensions, retroactive to 1945, or enable Veterans Affairs ministry to award such pensions.
It is hoped that with your kind understanding and co-operation, our just cause may find a solution in the near future.
It was on that account that on February 1 I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I must say that in his brief absence he has been missed by us all. Has the government received representations from any organization representing Canadian citizens who are survivors of nazi concentration camps urging that a bilateral agreement be made with the federal government of Germany for the compensation of all Canadian citizens and residents who have suffered persecution but have not been properly compensated to date?
At that point, Mr. Speaker, you cut me down again as on previous occasions. However, I should like the parliamentary secretary when he replies to inform us what the government has done to date, and what it intends to do.


Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) upon his concern, and also the hon. members for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) who have made representations and have shown their concern for the pleas of the people in this condition.
Mr. Speaker, the Polish Political Ex-Prisoners Association and the Canadian Polish Congress have made representations at several times urging that Canada enter into an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany for the benefit of persons who were persecuted by the nazis during world war II. As these persons came to Canada only after world war II, they were not Canadians at the time of persecution and so were not eligible for awards from the Canadian war claims fund. In so far as a bilateral agreement with West Germany is concerned, there is a real legal
DEBATES	February 5, 1968
difficulty involved since Canada has no standing in international law to represent these persons with respect to claims which arose before they became Canadians. Furthermore, the Bonn Agreements of 1952, and the fact that no peace treaty has ever been signed with Germany, also present difficulties.
I am convinced that in these circumstances the government can be of most assistance to these persons by making informal approaches to the German authorities and using our good office where appropriate in individual cases. This is the policy which has long been followed by this department. Our embassy in Bonn has had discussions on this matter with the German authorities on a number of occasions. The German authorities are fully aware of the desire of the Canadian government that they take as forthright an attitude as possible on the question of indemnification.
Moreover, our representative on the executive committee of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has spoken on this question a number of times. It should be noted, however, that West Germany has endeavoured to meet its responsibilities. The relevant West German legislation was liberalized in 1965 and a second fund was established with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1967 for the benefit of persons who had not been indemnified along the lines advocated by Canada and other interested nations. We shall of course continue to pursue with the West German authorities the possibility of any further measures which may be feasible.
I should like to assure the house that the Canadian government takes this question very seriously and makes every effort to assist these unfortunate persons who have suffered through no fault of their own from the acts of the nazi regime. We shall continue to use every opportunity to assist these people within the limits imposed by international law.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, February 6, 1968