1968-01-29

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last a number of questions were raised with regard to the serious situation which has developed as a result of the seizure of the United States ship known as Pueblo by North Korea and their continued detention of that United States naval vessel and its crew. It was suggested by the hon. member for Ontario that I should make a statement today.
I am sure all hon. members will understand that the fullest possible statement cannot be made at the present time because of the important discussions and consultations that are now still under way at the United Nations. The United States authorities have stated categorically that at the time of its seizure on the evening of January 21 the vessel in question was in international waters. We accept the United States statement with regard to the ship's co-ordinates at that time. The information available to us strongly indicates that this point does lie in international waters and not in territorial waters. North Korea has alleged otherwise but so far had not put forward any evidence in support of its contention.
The ship in question was under United States command and not under the command of the United Nations in Korea. The dispute therefore is essentially one between the United States and North Korea. We do not consider it to be a violation of the Korean armistice of 1953. Canada therefore on that account is not involved. However, we are concerned with the potential danger to international peace which this incident involves. We have a particular responsibility as a member of the Security Council to make every effort to find a peaceful solution.
On Thursday last when I was not in the house questions were asked about our obligations to Korea under the declaration made by the 16 contributing countries in the United Nations force. Canada's present obligations to
Korea derive from the 16-nation declaration on Korea issued at Washington on July 27, 1953 immediately following the signing of the Korean armistice agreement. That declaration includes this statement:
We affirm, in the interests of world peace, that if there is a renewal of the armed attack, challenging again the principles of the United Nations, we should again be united and prompt to resist.
The United Nations command remains in Korea with the full sanction and authority of the Security Council. Canada still has a liaison officer attached to the United Nations command but the last of the Canadian contingent, which was the third largest national force sent to Korea as a result of the Security Council's appeal in 1950, was withdrawn in 1957, four years after the conclusion of the Korean armistice agreement.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
There is not at this time any specific Canadian commitment to supply military forces or equipment. Should the situation in Korea develop adversely, and I sincerely hope it will not-it is certainly a matter of concern that there has been in recent months a marked increase in the number of incidents investigated by North Korea-it would be for the Canadian government and parliament, in the absence of a new United Nations resolution, to decide whether the situation fell within the meaning of the 16-nation declaration of which this country is a signatory. In any event the matter would have to be referred to the Security Council before any action could be taken by the United Nations.
The Security Council met on January 26 at the request of the United States. The Canadian representative, noting the council's primary responsibility for international peace and security, supported inscription of an item on the increase of tension in the area of Korea and welcomed the decision of the United States to seek the assistance of the United Nations to help it solve a difficult problem through diplomatic channels. Our ambassador suggested that one possible way of bringing about a speedy and equitable solution might be an arrangement for an intermediary or intermediaries.
6060	COMMONS
Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo
At a second meeting of the council on Saturday there was unanimous support for the further Canadian suggestion that progress might best be achieved by private consultations which would enable members of the council to consider and develop any ideas or suggestions they might have. This seemed to be the best way of dealing with the immediate problem of the Pueblo.
Those consultations, in which all members of the council have been participating, have been proceeding over the week end in New York and in a number of national capitals. They proceeded this morning, and they are taking place again at this very moment. A number of ideas have been explored I think in a useful and constructive fashion. I am encouraged to date by the sense of responsibility and restraint, as well as by the sense of urgency, which have marked these consultations. I must say that the government of the United States has displayed moderation and a commendable desire to seek a solution through diplomatic means. I hope all countries which may be involved in the consequences of failure to resolve the controversy will show an equal determination to seek a settlement through peaceful means.
Furthermore, members of the Security Council, and this includes Canada, have a special responsibility to seek a reasonable and early solution. I can assure the house that the government is following this matter very closely, is in continuous contact with the parties concerned, and I hope the end result of these consultations will be the resolving of this matter in a way which will not add to the dangers in the situation.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say it is reassuring to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes that we are in a position of special responsibility along with other countries in connection with this grave dispute which, of course, is a serious threat to international peace. While we are not directly involved here, as there is not a breach of the armistice, there is always the possibility that developments can lead to this.
So I think we have a particular responsibility not only to do what can be done in the interests of international peace, not only to discharge our responsibilities as a member of the Security Council, but also in view of our own situation as a signatory of the armistice. Certainly we cannot be mere spectators, and it is reassuring that the Secretary of State for

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
External Affairs recognizes this. I would commend the activity and energy of our ambassador, who has helped buy time, which is important, of course, in reaching a solution. It is important also, I think, in connection with the safety of the members of the crew, which is a factor that we cannot overlook. I therefore wish to urge that this government continue to make every possible contribution in seeking solutions to this very serious problem.
One cannot help but be impressed by the number of disputes and the recurring difficulties arising in connection with what one might call divided countries, of which this is one. My understanding is that none of these divided countries is a member of the United Nations. While I have no doubt there are very considerable difficulties involved in this question, I think it would be useful for our country to explore the possibility of involving these divided countries with the United Nations, as members if possible; because it seems pretty clear that the absence of membership in the United Nations is one of the added difficulties involved here. Therefore, if I may presume to do so, I would urge upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs a full exploration of the possibility of reducing future difficulties by a closer involvement of these countries with the United Nations.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has emphasized the seriousness of this particular dispute, with which all members of the house would agree. We encourage the minister and the Department of External Affairs to explore with all possible energy every possibility of reaching a solution.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the house will welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think we should look upon it as very commendable that a great power like the United States should have referred this serious incident to the United Nations rather than taking unilateral military action which could have far reaching consequences for the peace of the world.
It seems to me that from Canada's viewpoint there are two main points to be underscored. The first is that we do not look upon this incident of the seizure of the United States ship Pueblo as a violation of the North Korean armistice of 1953. I think we have to see this incident in the context of the cold war and the long series of incidents that have
January 29, 1968

arisen out of espionage and counter-intelligence carried on by both ships and planes. There have been many of these instances over the past few years, and this is simply another one of them.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a clear declaration with respect to Canada's position. I noticed that last Friday the United States state department called together the diplomatic representatives of the 16 countries which were signatories to the Korean armistice agreement. Although that meeting may have been called merely for the dissemination of information, in the light of some of the statements that have been made by congressional leaders in the United States to the effect that their country was still at war with North Korea, and that if hostilities were resumed it might be necessary to use tactical nuclear weapons, I think it is imperative for Canada at this time to make abundantly clear that we do not regard the Pueblo incident as a resumption of hostilities in North Korea, and that consequently Canada has no military obligation.
The second point that must be understood is that the immediate task is to secure the return of the ship and its crew to the United States. I do not think there is any value in arguing now about the location of the ship. This is something that will have to be determined by some international body or some intermediary. The United States claimed that the ship was 25 miles from the mainland, and later set the figure at 15.4 miles from the Korean island of Ungdo. North Korea claims that the ship was 7.6 miles from the mainland and was in its territorial waters.
I think the most pressing problem is to secure the services of an intermediary acceptable to both sides who can try to find a solution under which the ship and its crew can be returned. Later, if it were found there was some invasion of territorial waters, whatever indemnification is necessary could be set at that time. The difficulty will be in securing an intermediary who is acceptable to both sides to be appointed by the United Nations, in view of the fact that North Korea is not a member of the United Nations.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs is giving some thought to the possibility of using the neutral supervisory commission, which was accepted by both sides on July 27, 1953 and which might now be acceptable to both sides as an intermediary. I think this incident points up the necessity of having
Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo established at the United Nations some type of international tribunal which can ascertain the accuracy of facts in a dispute of this nature and report these facts to the Security Council.
I think the minister and our representative at the United Nations are to be commended for the contribution they have already made in pressing for an intermediary who will be acceptable to both sides, but I think the important thing at this stage is for the government to make it abundantly clear that this isolated incident, regrettable though it may be, cannot be looked upon by Canada as a violation of the Korean armistice agreement and that it does not involve Canada in any military commitments.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauihier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the members of the opposition to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). We think that he displayed great wisdom until now, for this is a special case. Indeed, it is in similar circumstances that world wars often break out and the minister knows that perfectly well.
Not only is it our duty to see to it that the 1963 treaty is not violated by either country, but also to bring out the truth, in order to give justice to both parties.
Nevertheless, we find it rather strange

and I think that will be the stumbling-block for the United Nations, which will probably have to settle the question-that only one party, the United States, is represented at the United Nations, since the other party, North Korea, is not a member of the organization and therefore will probably not be present to defend itself.
But the first thing that strikes us, we who are not military men, is to hear that a spy ship was navigating in either territorial or international waters, and the crucial question will be to determine the location of the ship. The United States, naturally, will say that it was in international waters, and North Korea will maintain that it was in her territorial waters. I think it will be rather difficult to get at the truth, because only the crew of the American ship really knows where the ship was.
Allowances will have to be made but, once again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was very prudent. We must be increasingly careful because, while we want
6062	COMMONS
Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo to make allowances, we do not want the United States to blame others for its own errors.
The matter now before the Security Council of the United Nations will surely be discussed thoroughly. We feel that unless the whole matter is clarified completely, it could lead to a third world war. Our authorities, and especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs, must therefore at all cost continue their good diplomatic work in order to prevent all those squabbles that could degenerate into a world war.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in our party join in the expression of gratitude that has been mentioned by the other speakers in relation to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I might say that while he is right in explaining that this is not actually a transgression of the armistice agreement in Korea, technically the United States and North Korea are at war because they never have signed a peace treaty. This makes the situation all the more serious.
Furthermore, there have been continuing provocations of increasing intensity across the demilitarized zone. Early last year it was my privilege to be at Panmunjom to see the actual evidence of such provocations and to speak with soldiers who had been involved in what was then apparently a pattern of provocation on the part of the North Koreans. However, we do share the minister's expression of satisfaction at the degree of temperance shown by the President of the United States and his government. We hope Canada will maintain the initiative in attempting to have an intermediary appointed in the hope of settling the problem by peaceful means.
It is interesting to note that if only the U.S.S.R. were a little bit interested in peace, she would join others in attempting to work out a settlement of this affair. It is interesting to note also that the second practical suggestion to come out of the Security Council, in addition to that which came from Canada, has come from the country of Ethiopia. Perhaps it is worth mentioning here that both countries played a very important part in the Korean war, and both are members of the Security Council today and tomorrow in an worthy way the free nations of the developed part of the world; the other is in like position with respect to the emerging nations of Africa. I only hope that the initiative taken by these two countries may be pursued in the
[Mr. Gauthier.)
DEBATES	January 29, 1968
Security Council today and tomorrow in an effort to force that body to make practical suggestions that will result in some section being taken to bring together the two parties concerned in this affair in the realization that the rest of the world wants a settlement and wants it quickly.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
While we may express gratification at the show of moderation by the United States we must still recognize that time is short. If the United Nations is to be of any assistance at this time it must move very quickly. Our representative on the Security Council, supported with all the strength of the government, should push forward our efforts so as to make the Security Council an effective instrument to deal with the problem facing it as a result of the North Korean affair.



BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-198, to amend the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the degree of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments reaches its zenith when somebody desires to take away Indian rights. This is what happened in 1943 when the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act was passed by this parliament as a result of an agreement entered into between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada without consultation with or the advice of our native Indian people.
One provision of the act requires that the native Indian people must surrender, in other words give up, their entitlement to mineral resources on the reserves before these resources can be exploited and developed. This is an obstacle in the way of any such development and this bill seeks to remove it by repealing the act itself.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
January 29, 1968

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Nielsen: Is the housing improvement program for Indian people as described in press release No. 1-67107 dated November 8, 1967, of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development available to the Indian people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and, if so, how many houses have been built in each territory under the program?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, but the
previous Indian housing programs which have been in effect in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have been accelerated and continued. During the fiscal year ended 196667, 41 houses were constructed for Indian people in the Yukon Territory; in the Northwest Territories 98 houses were constructed under the Indian housing program during the same fiscal year.


LIBAU, MAN., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In ordering the transfer of the postmastership at Libau, Manitoba, did the Postmaster General receive any recommendations in this regard from the Winnipeg District Office of the Post Office Department?
2.	Did the Post Office Department inform the Postmaster at Libau at any time from July to September, 1967, that a competition would be held prior to the appointment of a permanent postmaster for that district?
3.	Was such a competition held and, if so, how many applicants were there?
4.	What percentage of the postal subscribers of the Libau Post Office district signed the petition submitted to the Postmaster General October 30-November 10, 1967, asking that the postmastership not be transferred?
5.	Was Mr. Ewald Greening selected for appointment as Postmaster in 1964?
6.	If so, was he in fact appointed at that time and, if not, for what reason?
7.	As of January 1, 1963, on how many occasions have law enforcement officers been called upon by the Post Office Department to assist in the transfer of Post Office locations or postmasterships within a given postal district?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Poslmasier General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. On appointment as temporary postmaster, he was made aware that the appointment was temporary pending the appointment of a postmaster on a permanent basis.
3.	No.
4.	The term "postal subscribers" is not used by the Post Office Department. A record is maintained of the number of householders served from each post office in rural communities. A householder is defined as a person who occupies a house or an apartment, alone or as head of the household. The relationship of householders to "postal subscribers" is not available from departmental records.
5.	Yes.
6.	No. The initial selection was changed in favour of another applicant because of the latter's superior education and related clerical experience.
7.	None.


PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	When was the Public Service Arbitration Tribunal set up, and what are the names of the judges of this Tribunal?
2.	How many cases were heard by this Tribunal since its inception, and (a) are the hearings public (b) are the decisions published?
3.	Does this Tribunal have a Record Office and, if so (a) who is the clerk (b) where is the Record Office located?


Hon. Waller Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Public Service staff relations board as follows: 1. The Public Service Staff Relations Act, which came into force on March 13, 1967, made provision for the establishment of a Public Service arbitration tribunal to arbitrate disputes arising out of the negotiation of collective agreements between the government as employer and the various bargaining agents representing its employees.
The statute provides that the tribunal is to consist of a chairman, appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Public Service staff relations board, and two panels of other members, each panel consisting of at least three persons appointed by the board as being representative of the interests of the employer and employees respectively.
Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit of Montreal was appointed chairman of the tribunal for a three year period effective June 1, 1967. Appointments to the panels were announced by the Public Service staff relations board on January 19, 1968. With these appointments, the compostion of the tribunal is now complete.

January 29, 1968
Questions
Members of the employer panel are: Mr. Marius G. Bergeron, Q.C., of Montreal; Mr. A. Gordon Cooper, Q.C., of Halifax; Mr. R. G. Herbert of Vancouver; Mr. R. V. Hicks, Q.C., of Toronto; Mr. Jean Massicotte, Q.C., of Montreal.
Members of the employees panel are: Mr. R. Burns of Montreal; Mr. D. Coupland of Ottawa; Dr. L. Francis of Ottawa; Dr. S. Jamieson of Vancouver; Mr. W. Leonard of Regina.
These appointments, which are for a period of two years, become effective February 1, 1968. Members of the arbitration tribunal are eligible for reappointment. The appointment of panel members took place following consultation with the employer and the various employee organizations.
2.	None, (a) The Public Service staff relations board has authority to make regulations regarding the establishment of rules of procedure for hearings of the arbitration tribunal. The board, however, has not deemed it necessary at this stage to make any regulations in this regard. In the absence of such regulations, the tribunal has authority, subject to the act, to determine its own procedure. The question as to whether its hearings will be public therefore is a matter for decision by the arbitration tribunal. No decision has been made, (b) This is a matter which has not yet been decided.
3.	There is no record office as such. Under the legislation, requests for arbitration are to be made by notice in writing to the secretary of the Public Service staff relations board whose office is located in the Booth Building, 165 Sparks street, Ottawa.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the number of Indians, as defined in the Indian Act, who are registered as such in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the total amount of money spent by the Indian affairs branch in the province of Saskatchewan during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, and of this how much was spent for (a) salaries for Indian affairs branch personnel (b) expenses for Indian affairs branch personnel (c) capital projects (d) welfare or relief assistance for Indian people (e) clothing for Indian people?
3.	What is the name of each Indian person who was employed by the said branch and the amount of money each received with regard to his activities relating to each of the following Indian reserves (a) Standing Buffalo (b) Carry the Kettle (c) Pasqua (d) Okanese?

4.	What is the name, position held by, and salary of each person employed by the said branch in its (a) commissioner's office in the province of British Columbia (b) regional office in the province of Alberta (c) regional office in the province of Saskatchewan?
5.	What is the name, position held by, and salary of each person employed by the said branch in its
(a)	Athabasca Indian agency in the province of Alberta (b) File Hills Indian agency in the province of Saskatchewan (c) Fort Vermillion Indian agency in the province of Saskatchewan?
6.	During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, what was (a) the total number of houses built, and (b) the total amount of money spent for materials and labour on the said houses, in each of the Indian agencies of Athabasca, File Hills, and Fort Vermillion, and how many (a) Indians and
(b) non-Indians were employed in each of the said agencies on the construction of the said houses?
7.	During 1966, how many homes on Indian reserves were destroyed by fire and how many Indian people died as a result of the said fires?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister reached any decision on whether provision will be made for representatives of opposition parties in the house to attend the federal-provincial conference early next month?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think letters went to my hon. friend and other leaders over the week end in this regard; I hope they did. In any event I will be in a position to make a statement tomorrow, I think, on the administrative arrangements for the conference generally and covering the matter raised by my hon. friend.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister also let us know what are the plans for parliamentary sittings during the period of the constitutional conference?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister also indicate tomorrow to what extent it is proposed that the conference will be open and to what extent it is proposed that it will be closed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already suggested to the provincial heads of government, Mr. January 29, 1968

Speaker, that the first day's session be open to the public. At the end of the first day we would then consider whether we could extend that procedure or whether for the purpose of negotiations and discussion during the next day some executive sessions might be required. I would hope that the final session could also be made public. I have made these proposals to the provincial governments.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the administrative arrangements include-perhaps this will be covered in tomorrow's statement-a position paper or white paper setting out the proposals of the government regarding important constitutional issues which would be available to all members of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why that should not be done. I will certainly take it under advisement and try to cover it tomorrow.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement to the press to the effect that the cabinet will take another look at the government's national medicare insurance program which is due to come into force on July 1, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet has considered the representations of the provinces and can assure the house and the country that it is the intention of the government to allow provinces which are desirous of doing so to proceed with medicare as of July 1 next?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to attend cabinet last week. We will be discussing this matter during the current week and as soon as this discussion, which will bear on the examination that has been going on, is completed I shall be very glad to make a statement to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the indication in the recent Gallup poll that has just been published that 55 per cent of the persons interviewed expressed a desire to have the
Inquiries oi the Ministry government proceed with medicare as prescribed, will the government be more likely to give favourable consideration to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he should ask a question directly.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister also take into consideration the resolution passed at Montreal over the week end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know to which resolution my hon. friend is referring, because 60 or 70 resolutions were passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one on medicare, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstcke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With regard to the announcement by the minister of a study into the printing of labels in both official languages being made by his department, can the minister tell the house whether manufacturers associations, co-operative associations, etc., have been invited to submit opinions on this move?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I stated in Montreal that one of the fundamental rights of the consumer is to be able to understand what he or she is buying. This implies being able to buy a product that is labelled in his or her own language.
I have been in touch with the Packaging Association of Canada about this problem. There are constitutional aspects to it that we have not finished looking into. There are also certain international trade treaties that have relevancy to the question. The government will, I am sure, announce a firm policy in this regard when the question has been researched.


Mr.   Johnsfon@: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether any study might await further reports from the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism in which this matter may be dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

January 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER GOVERNMENT ACTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the 149,000 housing units completed during the past year are 8 per cent fewer than the figure for the year before, does the Prime Minister consider that the change in ministers responsible for housing will be sufficient to correct the situation or dees the government have any new plans-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not acceptable; it is an argument.


George Harris Hees: As I never wish to be controversial or provocative, Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. In view of the situation that I have outlined does the government have any new plans to lay before the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Northumberland put some misleading figures on the record which I believe should not be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: They were not misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether the figures cited by the hon. member for Northumberland are right or wrong is not a question of privilege, and the matter cannot be raised as a question of privilege. It is a matter of debate, and the minister will have to find an appropriate time to make his argument.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the importance of the matter will he inform the house as to the number of

housing starts expected in Canada in 1968 and how this figure compares with 1967 and 1966?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this is the kind of information which should be given on motions. If I may say so, both questions asked by the hon. member for Northumberland were perhaps not entirely according to the rules. He knows very well that questions should be asked directly and not prefaced with statements. We would not have become involved in this difficulty if these statements had not been made by the hon. member. In any event I suggest to the minister that the only way he can give this information is by way of a statement on motions.


Edgar John Benson: I have already given it, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance. Last Friday I asked the minister whether his department is investigating the increase in gasoline and fuel oil prices in the west and the proposal to raise those prices in the east. Since a report this morning indicates that Shell Oil has already raised its prices, has the investigation that the minister told us would take place been completed? If so, what is the finding?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is not completed.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to say today that his government has reached a decision with regard to the request from the government of Nova Scotia for assistance in the steel problem at Sydney? What is the position of the government in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have sent a letter to the premier of Nova Scotia making a further proposal for assistance by the government. I
January 29, 1968

do not see why that letter should not be made public but I think that before doing so I had better get in touch with the premier of the province. If he has no objection I shall be glad to make it public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister of India to the effect that she would like to see the personnel and staff of the international control commission in Viet Nam strengthened and expanded in order to enable that commission to carry out effective border patrol work with respect to the border of Cambodia. If so, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs say, since Canada and India appear to be ad idem on this matter, whether further efforts will be made to obtain the agreement of Poland?
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for
External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have been having some discussions with the government of India. We should like to see the commission strengthened in this area.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister got the point of my question: Since India and Canada seem to be ad idem on the matter, will further representations be made in an effort to get the agreement of the government of Poland, the third member of the commission?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs report to the house any recent information from Canada's representative on the commission who recently travelled to Hanoi to sound out the recent peace feelers which have been coming from that government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to report on that visit, but I expect to hear from the commissioner as soon as he returns from Hanoi.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. On Friday I asked the minister whether he would consider making a statement with regard to the Bank of Canada's decision in setting the statutory secondary reserves. He said he would take my request under consideration. Can the minister now say what is the situation with regard to that matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find that on January 24 the Bank of Canada itself made a statement on that matter. I might supplement what it said by saying to the hon. member and the house that the action taken by the Bank of Canada has not changed the practical situation, nor had it any purpose of that kind. In fact between January 1 and January 24 the secondary reserve ratio averaged well above 9 per cent even though there was a minimum requirement of only 7 per cent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I think the minister
should have had the courtesy to table in the house any statement or correspondence between him and the Bank of Canada, so that hon. members could discuss this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask permission now to table the statement which was made by the Bank of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But that procedure does not allow for comment.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance in a position to report on my question concerning accelerated write-offs on farm storage built in 1967?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been inquiring into this situation. As the house will appreciate, these tax concessions are only effective if they are temporary. Any tax concessions made to promote building lose their purpose if continued

January 29, 1368
Inquiries of the Ministry indefinitely. I have not yet made a decision whether to reintroduce those concessions. They have now been out of effect for one year.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence about a subject I discussed with him earlier. Consequently he has had notice of my question. Can the minister give the house and country any information about any activities that his department may engage in with respect to the very serious situation in the Bella Coola valley in British Columbia, which is liable to be flooded at any moment?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked with my department. We have not had a request for help from the provincial authorities. We will, of course, respond quickly to any call in this particularly grave situation. We checked further this afternoon with the area commander to know whether he can be of immediate assistance if the entire situation is reviewed.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
Is the minister in a position to say now whether he has received the report he has been expecting from the officials of his department since the beginning of winter on shipping on the St. Lawrence river? Furthermore, would the minister tell us if he intends to table his report in the house and to comment on it?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was delayed this morning in arriving at Ottawa. Just before I came into the house I was briefed. I hope to have most of the points raised in that briefing down on paper so that they can perhaps be given tomorrow to hon. members who are interested.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Minister of Agriculture was advocating government policy when he is reported to have said publicly that the Canadian Wheat Board should become the agent of the federal government instead of the agent of the farmers? Would this policy, if implemented, mean public control over the acres that could be planted in western Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to consult with the minister to see if in fact he said that.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Accompanying the cheques to disability pensioners in January was a notice that the adjustment to take care of the increase, which is to be retroactive to January 1, will be made after parliament has passed the necessary legislation. Can the minister say when this legislation will be introduced?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated when I made the announcement that we would take advantage of the first supplementary estimates to come before the house in the hope that the house will approve an item in those estimates to authorize payment of the adjustment.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister then say when those supplementary estimates will be introduced so that veterans will know when their adjustment cheques will be issued.


An hon. Member:: Haven't you heard of austerity?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I cannot answer that, I am afraid.
January 29, 1968


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he inform the house of the latest development with respect to the translation of the Woods report? What has happened in that regard?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the earlier question with respect to estimates. I have been informed that the supplementary estimate will be ready early in February. My latest advice is that the Woods report should be ready very shortly, perhaps by the middle of February. However, I hesitate to make that a firm statement in view of recent experience.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs issue a further announcement with their cheques advising veterans that parliament cannot deal with the legislation until the government introduces it, so that the responsibility can be properly attributed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In his absence on December 21 last I asked whether the government was giving consideration to an increase in the war veterans allowance payments. Can the minister answer that question now?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been very seriously considered, and while some W.V.A. recipients will receive a very small adjustment in view of the G.I.S. the decision has been made that no increase will be given at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question, in view of the decision not to give an increase at this time, would it be possible to increase the permissive income ceiling to accomplish the same effect?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am quite sure that has been done. I understand it was raised from $600 to $800 for a single person and from $900 to $1,200 for married people. I shall get the specific dates and supply that information to my hon. friend.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether he will bring forward the appropriate estimate to cover the promised increase in pensions for disability pensioners inasmuch as an estimate can be
Inquiries of the Ministry passed at any time and I am sure the house would pass this one very quickly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question I addressed to the Minister of Finance should have gone to the President of the Treasury Board, who was anxious to answer it.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would repeat his question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is very simple. In the interests of the veterans of this country would the President of the Treasury Board bring forward as soon as possible the appropriate estimate to cover the promised increase which was announced quite some time ago? An estimate can be passed any time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we will bring it forward just as soon as possible. I understand the increase will be effective as of January 1, as indicated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



PROPOSED TRANSFER OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES, SAINT JOHN, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, recognition is accorded to the head of state, who continues to be the king, and we announced on Friday that we are continuing relations with the government of Greece.']
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Has the minister received a communication from the Royal Canadian Legion asking for a delay in the transfer of the D.V.A. hospital facilities at Saint John West and, if so, what was his reply?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received such a representation. On the surface it appeared to be reasonable and at the moment we are re-examining the date of that transfer.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister keep in mind the assurances that were given that no operational transfers would take place until new facilities are available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are the recent press reports true that Canada has

January 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry extended diplomatic recognition to the present government of Greece?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, like other governments we are continuing our relations with Greece.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. From the reports it seemed to me that deliberate action had been taken by the Canadian government in that the reports stated that Canada was now re-establishing diplomatic recognition. Is that not true?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, recognition is accorded to the head of state, who continues to be the king, and we announced on Friday that we are continuing relations with the government of Greece.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Either today or tomorrow will he indicate to the house what items of legislation the government wishes parliament to deal with during the remainder of the present session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will be very glad to look into that possibility and make available to the house what we would like to get passed before we prorogue this session but, of course, whether we will be able to do it all will depend on the progress we make on the legislation now before the house.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house when the regional air policy, announced by the former minister in September, 1966 will be implemented?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a general policy question on which I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment. It is a very complicated problem but I would be glad to discuss it

with my hon. friend at an appropriate time, perhaps when the departmental estimates are before the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that this matter is of utmost importance to western Canadians I am sure the minister will want to take urgent action.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, urgent action is exactly what is required.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of that fact that the number of unemployed persons in this country increased by 87,000 in the 12 months prior to December 1 last, according to the latest figures available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, does the government have any immediate plans to lay before parliament to stimulate the economy and correct this situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, long experience has taught me to look into my hon. friend's figures before I reply to any of his questions.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the house that the figures I used in both questions I asked today were from the D.B.S. and were absolutely correct.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other day an hon. member asked him about the possibility of Canadian assistance to the victims of the earthquakes in Sicily and the minister referred to keeping in touch with the International Red Cross. Would he inform the house whether further inquiries have been made, whether the government has decided to offer assistance to the victims of these disasters and, if so, to what extent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to give a definite answer today but I hope to do so very soon.
January 29, 1968



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and I regret I have not given him notice of it. In view of the crucial importance to the future of the commonwealth that the problems of Rhodesia be satisfactorily resolved, has the Prime Minister given consideration to the suggestion made, I believe by the Prime Minister of Zambia that the right hon. gentleman should take the initiative in arranging a commonwealth conference in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there would not be much purpose in having a conference of this kind to deal with this particular subject without the wholehearted approval of the government of the United Kingdom because that is the government that still remains primarily responsible. There have been exchanges of views between commonwealth governments as to the holding of a commonwealth prime ministers meeting, but no decision has been reached on whether it should be this spring, next autumn, or indeed when. I have had some correspondence with the heads of two commonwealth governments in Africa, including the President of Zambia, and I hope to have a talk with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when he visits Ottawa toward the end of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the Canadian government has recognized the government of Greece would the minister follow the same precedent and establish relations with the government of Rhodesia, which is similarly illegal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Agriculture is not. I cannot speak for other departments, but to my knowledge they are not.']
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour which is of very great concern to the fabric and woollen in-
Inquiries of the Ministry dustry in Canada. Has the minister replied to a telegram from the employees of Saltsman dry cleaning enterprises about the refusal of that company to conform to the minimum wage law proposed by the New Democratic party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. It relates to his question earlier today. I should like to ask him whether he has ever heard of the saying attributed to Mark Twain that one should get his facts straight before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the resolution endorsed and adopted during the week end by the Liberal convention concerning the monarchic system in Canada, does the Prime Minister intend to adopt such legislation during the present session?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs with reference to recent public charges by Dr. Vennema regarding the use of poison gas by United States forces in Viet Nam. Since Dr. Vennema was in Viet Nam under the auspices of the external aid office, has the minister made an investigation of these very serious charges and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. Paul  Mariin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the information which appeared in the press was contained in a letter sent by Dr. Vennema to a friend in the United States. I have asked the external aid office to contact Dr. Vennema. Dr. Vennema has reported that his statement was taken out of context. We are waiting now for a further direct report.

January 29, 1988
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Bailie River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that the government is considering importing frozen beef from the Argentine?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Agriculture is not. I cannot speak for other departments, but to my knowledge they are not.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. I am sure the minister is aware of the shortage of housing in the metropolitan Toronto area despite the fact that last year was a record year for starts in Canada and that this year will be another record year-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat.


An hon. Member:: That is all he wanted to say anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is trying indirectly to put statistics on the record.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I was just making preliminary remarks. I have not mentioned any statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Can the minister report on the progress being made toward development of the Malvern lands owned by the federal and Ontario governments in partnership? Will homes be available at Malvern by next fall, as promised by the Ontario government?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is only worried about next fall the question should be placed on the order paper.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am afraid they would have
to be started before then.



CO-OPERATIVES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that for some three years now successive ministers have indicated the government's intention to bring down a national co-operatives act, may I ask the minister if work has proceeded to the point where such legislation will be introduced at this session?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said to the Canadian Co-Operative Association last year and also when a delegation from that body visited me later that we wished to bring down amendments to the Canada Corporations Act which would be linked with any new Canadian co-operatives bill. We are also looking into certain constitutional aspects. I am hopeful that when we bring down amendments to the Canada Corporations Act in the very near future we will be able to introduce a new bill in the co-operatives field.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question in two parts. First, do I understand it is the intention of the minister that there should be a separate co-operatives act as requested by the cooperative organizations and, second, will such legislation be introduced at this session?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to have a separate co-operatives act. With regard to whether we will be able to introduce it at this session, I rather doubt that.



INQUIRY CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT TO ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On December 5, in regard to my question concerning a replacement for the member who resigned from the royal commission on the status of women, the Prime Minister replied that he hoped to make an appointment before long. Can the Prime Minister now say when the appointment will be made and whether he will consider an appointment from an unrepresented section of the population, the trade union movement?
January 29, 1968


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with a very well qualified gentleman in this field and have asked him whether he would fill the vacancy which has resulted from the resignation. I am waiting to hear from him.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last Monday I asked whether the government would give reconsideration to the directive stating that veterans who apply for loans under the Veterans Land Act will be subject to a means test. Has the government given consideration to the matter and what is the decision?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the statement of the hon. member about a means test. The purpose of the directive was simply to ensure that in the use of the funds being made available to establish veterans no hardships would result and therefore these examinations would be very carefully made so that no one would suffer in the allocation of the available funds.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask this supplementary question. So that members will be in a position to answer questions from veterans when the flood begins, will the minister ensure that members will be able to acquire copies of directives Nos. 4 and 5 which outline this procedure?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have inquired into this. It is my understanding that it is not usual to supply members of parliament or anyone else with interdepartmental documents. However, I am quite sure that the substance of those directives could be made available. I believe this information has been made available to the hon. member already.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a related supplementary question. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house of any change in the regulation with regard to income ceilings for recipients of war veterans allowances?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have the information with me. I could not locate it a moment ago. I was quite correct in saying that the increase in casual income ceilings is from $600 to $800 for a single veteran and
Inquiries of the Ministry from $900 to $1,200 for a married veteran. These regulations were approved by order in council on January 4 and the direction went out to the offices on January 9.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has heard lately from the royal commission on security and whether he is able to advise us when we may expect a report from that commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I discussed this matter with one or two members of the commission over the week end. I was informed that they hope to have their report completed by this summer and to be able to present it then.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether he is in receipt of a letter of complaint from a card carrying Liberal in Pointe Claire, Quebec, to the effect that the Company of Young Canadians, Quebec branch, has recently purchased $33,000 worth of sports cars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Simpson: Has the Prime Minister had time to check that complaint?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the house whether, in light of the increasing interest in consumer affairs being taken by the food and drug directorate, it is considered likely that the directorate will be transferred from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.
6074	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting GRAIN



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT RESPECTING PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the major resolution passed by the meeting of western Liberals, at which I believe the minister was present, having to do with grain prices and the price of wheat in particular, can he say whether he intends to make any policy statement before prorogation of this session of parliament?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, any statement I had to make in respect of that western Liberal meeting was made in Winnipeg.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I was not attempting to cast any aspersions on any statement the minister may have made at that time. I should like to know, however, whether he has any intention of making a policy statement to the house in that regard.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the representations of that responsible organization, like the representations of other responsible organizations, will be considered. If there is to be any statement made by the government it will, of course, be made in this house in the proper fashion.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday clause 2 (g) (i) was under consideration, with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. Clause 2 (c) was allowed to stand.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy jor Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, at the close of the debate last Friday on Bill C-163 I moved an amendment to clause 2 (g) (i). I did so because I am convinced that if this bill is to be of any use to the management of the C.B.C. and if it is to give us any assurance that the management in relation particularly

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
to programming, will be more effective than it has been under the former arrangement it is necessary that guide lines be laid down in a more effective way than is the case with those already in existence. It may seem that the amendment is a very minor one and does not in any way really change the intent of this clause, but I believe it is important because it lays down a guide line that is vital to the well-being of this country. During this debate I have spoken as a parent concerned about what is being presented over our public broadcasting system that may be damaging to family life and the welfare of our youth in an age which has more pressures and temptations than ever before.
The amendment deserves to be given very serious consideration by the minister. It also certainly deserves the support of the members of this house who I believe are just as concerned as I am about the environment in which young people generally and our own children find themselves today. Television can be a tremendous force for good if it sets objectives directed toward supporting that aspect of our society which is vital to the future of our country. There is no more important aspect than home and family life. It is my belief that the public broadcasting system has a greater and more real responsibility to the parents, families and young people of this country than perhaps even our educational institutions, and I do not detract from their responsibility in any way. Certainly television, if it faces up to its responsibility in this area, could be a tremendous force for good, and it is in this light that television management should view its responsibility.
Many of my constituents and others from all provinces of Canada who have written me are concerned that, unfortunately, the C.B.C., our public broadcasting system, is producing the opposite effect in its television broadcasts. It would seem, as many of these letters suggest, that there must be some people who are intentionally and deliberately attempting to break down our culture and the concept of family life in this country. Otherwise the type of programming we now have could not continue as it does.
The second part of the amendment might be considered from the aspect of whether programs disseminated over our public broadcasting system can be considered as encouraging criminal activity. That is a pretty serious statement to make but I am convinced that is exactly what is happening. No better evidence of this could be provided than the
January 29, 1968
program last night relating to the drug culture. I do not know how many saw it. At first it did not seem to me to be such a bad presentation. As I studied it and made note of some of the remarks and what seemed to be the over-all objective, I could come to no other conclusion but that it was not a public affairs show and not entertainment but a very subtle and clever job of selling drugs as an acceptable part of the new morality. This program was thoroughly advertised to ensure a very large audience. I am sure the majority of those who watched it were teenage university and high school students.
An lion. Member: When was it shown?


Robert Norman Thompson: It was shown on the C.B.C. program "The Way It Is" between ten and eleven o'clock p.m., Sunday, January 28.
I am so concerned about this drug culture program shown on C.B.C., after weeks of advertising to ensure a large audience, that I feel it can only be termed the greatest betrayal of Canadian youth and the most potentially dangerous emanation from any broadcasting agency ever to be seen in Canada. The tragedy is that almost no adults watching it would understand the dangers.


David Lewis: Except the hon. member, no doubt.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am convinced that I was not the only one who recognized the dangers. As a result of the telephone calls and telegrams I received this morning I realize there are thousands of parents across this country who agree with me.
It seems to me that Ross McLean, the producer of "Drug Culture", and Patrick Watson deliberately attempted to encourage the teenage population to take up the use of drugs. To understand the show you have to put yourself in the place of a Canadian or American teenager watching it. Young people in cities and towns all know of some of their friends who have tried drugs, or have heard of someone who has, particularly around the schools and colleges. In fact, I have a personal friend whose daughter attends a high school in western Canada and just last week she was approached by drug pushers right in the high school where she attends classes.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Miss LaMarsh:: Did you report it to the police?


Robert Norman Thompson: Therefore there is a temptation to try these drugs. We have all
6075
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting experienced that young, impressionable period of life and we should know that such things appeal because they are different and unknown. What could this program do for the youth who watched it except encourage them to experiment with drugs?
Not even one, strong statement was made about the danger of taking drugs. The one person on the panel who opposed it was an old man whose statements were for the most part all right but were anything but forceful. I ask hon. members to listen to what a leading medical man has to say, as quoted in today's Globe and Mail. "L.s.d. is a desperately dangerous drug", said Dr. J. S. Prichard, chief of neurology at the Hospital for Sick Children. Then he said:
Enough evidence is in now that youngsters shouldn't even take one dose-and I'm not talking about the legal or moral aspects, but about the physical.
Later he referred to the evidence that l.s.d. causes breaks in the chromosomes which carry the genes that transmit hereditary characteristics and also govern certain processes within the body. He said there have also been reports of psychoses, that is, severe mental illnesses, resulting from the use of l.s.d.
On the program last night there was not one single reference to the adverse effects of using drugs. The producers of the program attempted to encourage their use and to give the impression that the taking of them was not really harmful. "Enough evidence is in now", said Dr. Prichard, "that youngsters shouldn't even take one dose." He referred to other scientific evidence to support his statement. These statements were made in the course of a seminar for teachers. Last week a statement attributed to the department of health of New York city revealed that in that city there are at the present time at least 150 young people who are in mental institutions as a result of taking l.s.d.
I have in my hand a quotation from an issue of the New York Times published only a few months ago. One of the world's authorities on the use of drugs, when speaking at the University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. Constandinos J. Miras, a pharmacologist from the University of Athens, said that chronic users of marijuana usually suffer adverse personality changes and are subject to damage to the brain and other organs. Dr. Miras said, further:
I can recognize a chronic marijuana user from afar by the way he walks, talks and acts.

6076	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
This newspaper article continues:
He said personality changes alter use of the drug Included slowed speech, lethargy, lowered inhibitions and loss of morality. But users may also become suddenly violent without apparent provocation. They will even kill," Dr. Miras said. The common medical belief is that marijuana is not harmful to health.
That was the idea that was put across in the program last night, without any mention of the statements by health authorities. Dr. Miras went on to say that these symptoms occur after only two cigarettes a day for two years or longer. He said that personality changes result.
I can only add to these reports that I know that in California tragic numbers of people have been drawn into the use of heroin and other drugs by starting on marijuana, and most of them started on marijuana while attending educational institutions. Look at the police records in the United States and see how many of their young criminals had their moral level lowered by marijuana and entered upon crime without a moral qualm as a result, it is believed, of using the drug.
I say; Wake up Canada. There are men in the C.B.C. who would betray this country. Any research of any consequence at all would have turned up these facts for the producers of "The Way It Is" if they had been interested in presenting the other side of the story. Any responsible producer would have put these facts in their proper perspective on that show last night. But what did we see? No strong voices were opposed to the misuse of these drugs. There was only subtle discussion giving the pros and cons in a very calm and deliberate way.
It is obvious that the producers of this show deliberately selected their panelists, their audience and their film clips to play up the joys of drug-taking, making only a token reference to the dangers thereof. There was one short, quick sequence of a man writhing about in the withdrawal symptoms but minutes on end portraying good looking, intelligent boys talking about the fun, appeal and joyous effects of taking drugs. They are, in the words of one youth, king for a day.
This program last night even showed youth how to prepare the needle and how to prepare the powdered drug and put it into the needle. Then it showed where and how to inject it. Is this necessary on a public show which has the intention, or at least should have the intention, of showing the dangers of taking drugs? I do not think it is.

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
There was a bearded professor from Buffalo on the program who is at this very moment facing drug charges in the courts of the United States. He was brought to Canada to appear on a panel show that would give our young people the impression of promoting the use of drugs. This professor gave a long harangue on the virtues of the drug culture. Then an eloquent youth from the audience did likewise. He said, "What if only four or five die each year from l.s.d.? What is that compared with the millions killed in the war in Viet Nam? We in the drug culture are against war". Take drugs, was his message, and join the new generation who would save the world.
There was not one protest from that youthful audience against the use of drugs; there was only support. I know there are many responsible young people in our institutions and in our society who are opposed to the use of drugs and are protesting against the increasing traffic in drugs in our educational institutions. But where were their voices last night? They were not included, and it was not intended that they should be. If I were a member of the Mafia I would pay $1 million to promote a program such as we heard last night on "The Way It Is." Perhaps we had better look into that too. The sad thing is that most adults, as I did at first, would not even catch the subtle appeal that was intended to attract youth to accepting the message that drugs are okay. Try it, the youth implied, lots of kids do; there is no trouble getting out of it if you want to stop it afterwards.
I quote the words of the moderator of the program, Mr. Saywell, as I took them down, "We have come a long way from hostility to drugs to the investigation of them." So now mothers and fathers need not warn their children of the dangers of drugs; this question is being investigated to find out whether there is any harm in them. That was the gist of his remarks.
It is necessary to understand the appeal of television. It is not the words that matter so much as the appeal to the emotions. The camera played on the face of a beautiful boy several times for periods up to a minute while apparently he was under the influence of drugs. What a come-on for youth.
With regard to air pollution the C.B.C. portrayed on a feature program a few months ago, a spine-chilling spectacle of the tragic human consequences of fluoride polluted air. But with drugs there is no presentation. Instead there is a quiet approach showing that drugs are not really so bad after all.
January 29, 1988
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I believe that the national television network is being used to promote something that is not only destroying the moral resistance of our young people but is also breaking their health, apart from the fact that they are breaking the law by so doing. I think it is important that there be a guide line in this paragraph which would make producers responsible before the law for the production of programs which might be considered to be criminal in nature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. member thinks it is fair to John Saywell to suggest that his approach in the show last night was favourable to the use of drugs. I received the impression that both John Say-well and Patrick Watson were scared stiff of them.


Robert Norman Thompson: I would hope that the hon. member's statement is right, but I have here the words used by Saywell. He said:
We have come a long way from hostility to drugs to the investigation of them.
That kind of statement does not carry the message which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is suggesting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not have John Saywell's words in my mind but I certainly remember Patrick Watson saying that because of his puritanical, Ontario background this thing scares hell out of him.


Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to think that something would scare some hell out of Patrick Watson because in my opinion he is doing a lot of damage in this country on the C.B.C. I can only say that as I listened to some young people explaining last night's program to me, my daughter being one of them, I understood it carried the subtle message that the use of these drugs is all right, that they should go ahead and try it and be king for a day because it is a great experience and there is nothing wrong with it. It also implied that the use of these drugs should not be considered a criminal act.
I do not intend to speak much longer. I commend this amendment to the minister and to the committee as one which merely sets down some guide lines for management in controlling not only the technical and financial aspects of public broadcasting but also programming in relation to what is apparently the attitude today among many television producers that free speech gives them the right to use the airwaves to promote their
27053-383^
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting particular idea of what is right and wrong and in a way they think is right. Not only must we ascertain that the taxpayers' money is well spent; it is also necessary to ensure that a program dealing with the drug problem or the drug culture, as it is called, is fair in its approach and attempts to present the other side of the picture, at least by giving the general impression that the use of drugs is wrong. Therefore I hope that the committee and the minister will consider the amendment as being a useful guide line to the corporation's management.


Mr. Malher:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on the amendment, which I hope will be brought to a vote and disposed of very shortly, may I recall to the memories of hon. members something of the very long background of our deliberations on this legislation. When the legislation was introduced last year I believe I was one of the first to urge that it be sent as quickly as possible to the standing committee on broadcasting. I did this, as others did, because in considering as complex and detailed a matter as the one with which we are now concerned it is surely obvious that the standing committee, where all parties can be represented and where a detailed discussion can take place, is the best place in which to carry on an efficient examination of the legislation. We did get it to the committee and, as others have said earlier, we discussed it there for 12 days, clause by clause, paragraph by paragraph, and in some cases word by word. Not only were members of the broadcasting committee privileged to take part in the discussion but, as we all know, any hon. member who has an interest in the subject before a committee can come to the committee and speak on that point.
I believe that in some respects our consideration of the bill in committee was very similar to the earlier committee consideration and discussion of the white paper which preceded the legislation and was considered in committee for days and days. All these considerations followed very far reaching examinations by at least one important commission studying the broadcasting situation in Canada. After these deliberations and the detailed and largely impartial committee consideration have taken place, here we are back in the house where we have spent all of last week going over all these clauses very much as we did at the committee level. With these facts in mind I must admit I was wrong when I urged that the matter be sent to the committee for consideration because it has turned

6078	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting out that we might just as well have continued the discussion here in the house instead of sending the matter to the committee. In that way at least we would have avoided duplication of our discussions.
I imagine that in a matter such as broadcasting it is impossible to make much speed when we are considering clauses of this type because what should be broadcast is very largely a matter of personal opinion. As someone has said before me, broadcasting is rather like sex. A lot of it is not much good but it is all interesting. I think this quality of interest is what spurs some hon. members to discuss this matter. I believe that the length of the discussion we have had in committee of the whole house should now spur us to bring the amendment before us, and no doubt others which will follow, to a vote as soon as possible.
I remember when we were in the standing committee one hon. member remarked at the end of a tedious session, in which I think we made a change of one word in a subclause, that had Moses had the same problem with his legislation when he brought it down from above and gave it to the children of Israel and had he had the same orators to contend with in his organization as the ministers and others have here, the children of Israel would probably still be somewhere in the wilderness debating an amendment to a subclause on a point in the tenth commandment which is in part at least that it is wrong to covet thy neighbour's wife. No doubt the amendment would be to the effect that it would be all right to do so between the hours of 5 and 7 p.m., particularly if nothing came of it.
In speaking against the amendment-and I do not want to take up any more time of the house-I hope that in what I have said I do not appear in any way to be putting myself above any member of the house or of the broadcasting committee. I believe many other hon. members share the general views I have expressed on the need for making better progress. I would say there are three reasons therefore. First, Canada needs this legislation and has been waiting for it for a long time. Second. New officials in the public sector have been appointed and are waiting to receive the legislation in order to go to work to improve some of the matters about which hon. members have complained. Finally, the broadcasting situation, important as it is, is by no means the only major problem confronting the Canadian people at this time. So I sit down in the hope we will have an early
IMr. Mather.]
DEBATES	January 29, 1968
vote on the amendment before us. Personally,
I intend to vote against it.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on this amendment for a moment. I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer is unnecessary, particularly if we are to give import to the words "high standard". I cannot imagine a program being of high standard if it gives encouragement to criminal activity or if it does not help to safeguard sound family life. A program of high standard in which there is a free and frank discussion affecting family life cannot do anything else but achieve the objective sought by the hon. member in his amendment. We could put in a dozen clauses to cover the many worthy objectives and virtuous things we would like to see done. However, I believe these objectives are covered by the words "high standard", and we rather weaken the meaning of those words by trying to go in the direction the hon. member is suggesting.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Pritiie:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief in relation to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. I think there should be a little balance on the record in this regard. Everyone would not view the broadcast to which reference has been made in the same light as the hon. member did. I watched it, and indeed a number of young people from the church my teenagers attend came to our place to watch the program and to listen to the discussion. We encouraged them to do so. The hon. member for Red Deer has very little faith in young people if he believes they are all automatically going to take drugs as a result of seeing the program.
Generally speaking, we found the program to be quite good and the panel discussion seemed to be good. I do not like these amendments that keep coming up which seem to impose more and more control all the time. I thought that the panel discussion part of the program was very useful, not only for the young people but for myself as a member of parliament. I was interested in listening to it because I know that later we will be discussing bills which bear upon the use of drugs in our country. I do not see the reason for all the alarms which have been sounded by the hon. member for Red Deer, and I am sure most members do not either.
January 29, 1963


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to comment on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer I should like to refer back to the discussion of this clause in the standing committee. You will find it reported in the official report of the committee for November 23, 1967. There are some questions and answers on page 109 of that issue, and I quote myself:
' Mr- Cowan: We are talking about clause 2(g) (i): "the national broadcasting service should (i) be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion."
I then asked the minister to tell us what a balance in fair proportion was in her opinion, and I will give her answer in a moment. I should like to point out that last week I gave two quotations from the minister's remarks when discussing C.A.T.V. I cited her remarks in the committee report for November 28, page 166, where she said:
I am not very familiar with the economics of them-
On page 167 of the same report she is reported as having said:
No, but of my knowledge I do not know that much detail about it.
Those are the two statements the minister made about C.A.T.V. I should like to read the statement she made on November 23 in connection with the clause we are discussing right now. I asked the minister to tell us what proportion of balance, in her opinion, was fair. This is the answer I received.
I believe that is a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman.
It was not a rhetorical question but the minister gave me that snappy answer. That was her reply to a man who was seeking some information from her. I asked the minister to tell us what proportion of balance, in her opinion, would be fair. I then said:
Well, are these not rhetorical words in here?
The words to which I referred were:
-the national broadcasting service should be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion.
This is the snappy answer I got when I asked if these were not rhetorical words in the subclause. The Secretary of State, the person responsible to parliament for the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors, answered as follows as reported on page 109:
It is intended to mean exactly what it says; but I am not in a position to define what the individual words of it mean.
There is an answer for you if you ever got one, and it is contained in an official government report of the proceedings of this committee whose work the hon. member for New Westminster has been extolling. Talk about progress, when the minister responsible for this whole broadcasting field answers a question about the meaning of this clause now under discussion by saying "it is intended to mean exactly what it says, but I am not in a position to define what the individual words of it mean."
I went on to state:
The words were not chosen because they are so nebulous, were they?
The answer was "No." I then went on to point out what a balanced program is in the opinion of the C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors because I had with me at that committee meeting, as I have here in the House of Commons, a copy of the Fowler report of 1965. This report is looked upon evidently as the Bible of broadcasting by those in the television and broadcasting world. During the committee meeting I pointed out the following to the minister, who had advised me she did not know what the words meant but that they meant exactly what they said. As reported on page 109 of the committee report I said:
At the top of page 29 of the report of the committee on broadcasting 1985, you will find the following: B.B.G. program categories-all television stations (March 1-7, 1964) English language-C.B.C. owned and operated; information 37.5 per cent; light entertainment, 52.2 per cent. Would you call the light entertainment at 52.2 per cent a balanced or a fair proportion of the programming of the C.B.C.?
Here is another enlightening answer from the minister:
If you are asking for my personal opinion, of course, I can give it but I do not know that this helps the committee very much. My personal opinion on that is no more important than that of the other 20 million people in the country.
The Secretary of State, responsible for the C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors, informed the committee, and I am now advising the house, that her opinion was no more important than that of the other 20 million people in the country. Such humility is to be admired. However, I ask her to assume the

6080	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting responsibilities that have been entrusted to her by the parliament of Canada. I then said: We have here figures showing the English C.B.C. giving 37.5 per cent to information-that is mentioned here in this section-52.2 per cent to entertainment; and for enlightenment-which, I presume, would include arts, letters and the sciences-2.2 per cent. Is this what you would call a balanced service and a fair proportion between information, enlightenment and entertainment, when the enlightenment brings us 2.2 per cent of the programs?
The minister's reply was:
Of course I do not agree that it is a balance.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if you look at page 29 of this Bible of the Canadian broadcasting world, the Fowler report for 1965, you will find that all the English language stations in Canada, during the period March 1 to 7, 1964, devoted 34 per cent of time to information, 57 per cent to light entertainment and 1.6 per cent to the arts, letters and sciences. If any clause as nebulous as this ever needed amending, this one is it. The Secretary of State says she does not know what the words mean. When the hon. member for Red Deer stands up and tries to clarify the directions given to the C.B.C. and the new council on radio and television, then people say we should not be giving more directions to this organization than those contained in this most nebulous clause.
If you feel that the English language stations have been pretty light on enlightenment in devoting 1.6 per cent of their time to enlightenment, which means they devote 98.4 per cent to information and light entertainment, then look at the French language stations. These figures are contained on the same page 29 of the report. The French language television stations between March 1 and 7, 1964 devoted 32.9 per cent of their broadcasting time to information and 58.6 per cent to light entertainment. Evidently the French are more interested in enlightenment than the English sector. The English stations gave only 1.6 per cent of their time to enlightenment whereas the French stations topped that figure with a magnificent 1.7 per cent. This means that 0.1 per cent more time was given to enlightenment on the French networks than on the English.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The interesting thing about the English stations giving 34 per cent of their time and the French stations 32.9 per cent to information is this. I should like to know how much of this information is repetitive. Do they regard their

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
news broadcasts for five minutes every hour on the hour and for three minutes every half hour on the half hour as being information? If you were to listen, Mr. Chairman, to these news broadcasts over a period of 24 hours- and many newspaper publishers and newspaper people have done so over the years-you would find that the repetition of news items is nauseating. News broadcast on television or radio stations over a period of six hours can produce not one new item of news from start to finish.
I checked into this point in the past 20 months with some radio stations in Canada and I was informed that news items on radio are put on tapes. Then at night when the staff is reduced to save expenses, probably to save money for the enlightenment programs in the daytime, these tapes are played over the radio at 11 p.m., 12 p.m., 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m., 5 a.m., and 6 a.m. and also at 12.30 a.m., 1.30 a.m., 2.30 a.m., 3.30 a.m., 4.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. What you get is the same news both on the hour and on the half hour for six hours on end. This is called information, Mr. Chairman. How in the name of heaven can you call the same item of news "information" when it is repeated ad nauseam?
What hope is there, Mr. Chairman, for enlightening the people of this nation through the television stations of the country when they are devoting the magnificent total, French and English stations combined, of 1.6 per cent of their time to the subject? If it were not for the fact that we have a commission on biculturalism today, about which we hear so much yackety-yack, we would probably get only 0.8 per cent of broadcast time devoted to culture. However, since we have two cultures 1.6 per cent of the time is devoted to culture and 98.4 per cent of the time to information and light entertainment.
Why in the name of heaven should we have to tax the people of Canada so that they can be provided with light entertainment by our television stations for a period representing 57.3 per cent of their broadcast time? More than half the time is taken up with providing light entertainment. Are the people of Canada unable to entertain themselves? Must the taxpayers continue to pour out money in order to entertain somebody in Newfoundland, somebody else in the back end of Ontario and somebody else in Saskatchewan? Cannot the public today entertain themselves as they did in past days, or must we saddle the Canadian taxpayer with a bill of hundreds of millions
January 29, 1988

of dollars to finance Canadian radio and television systems which devote 57.3 per cent of their time to light entertainment?
I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer because it endeavours to give some specific direction to station programming. I have already made reference to three answers given by the Secretary of State, who has been entrusted with the task of piloting this measure through the House of Commons. I have noted three statements made by her to the committee proving that she does not know what she is talking about, and this on her own admission. We have been asked to support her, on the strength of a broad, general statement made on three different occasions. When I have finished reading the committee reports I shall have picked out some additional admissions. I like the openness of the Secretary of State; very few ministers are as frank as her.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this bill should be referred back to cabinet so that it can receive some attention from people who know what they are talking about. This parliament should not be asked to endorse a bill the words of which the minister says are intended to mean exactly what they say, though she is not in a position to define those words. I support the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Thompson) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 42.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2(g) (i) carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair a question at this stage? The hon. member for St. Paul's made some very interesting comments on clause 2 (g) (i), which are to be found on pages 109 and 110 of the committee report. I have not seen the hon. member for St. Paul's today and I should like to ask whether it is permissible in committee of the whole house to read into the record extracts of the evidence given before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts so as to put on record the opinion of the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it relevant?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that anything that is part of the committee proceedings is already part of the public record.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank the minister for her intervention; it is part of the public record. I am sorry to say that that record is not always
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting read by the public, whereas Hansard gets much wider distribution. If I am not mistaken, something like 800 copies in English and 350 copies in French are printed of the committee reports. The printing of Hansard runs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35,000 to 40,000 copies per issue.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To answer the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who asked, "Is it relevant", I refer to a discussion that took place in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts on clause 2 (g) (i). After I pointed out the ridiculous situation in regard to a balanced program service in fair proportion as represented by the action of television stations in the past, which devoted 33.9 per cent to information, 57.3 per cent to light entertainment and 1.6 per cent to enlightenment, the hon. member for St. Paul's made these comments as found on pages 109 and 110:
Presumably, this breakdown shown in the Fowler report, and which my friend Mr. Cowan has just quoted, is the C.B.C.'s understanding of what is a balanced program. If this is not balanced, then we should tell the C.B.C. because the wording in clause 2(g) is practically a copy of what the C.B.C. has considered to have been its mandate for years, as set out on page 124 of the Fowler report. Perhaps I might read it. In the latest version, the mandate that the C.B.C. conceives it has received from parliament is:
"(a) to be a complete service, covering in fair"-
There is that word "fair" again.
-"proportion the whole range of programming; bringing things of interest, value and entertainment to people of all tastes, ages and interests." And so on. Clause 2(g), Madam Minister, practically copies the mandate that the C.B.C. has given to itself for years. The program distribution that Mr. Cowan has read is the C.B.C.'s interpretation of what a balanced program is. If this is not a balanced program, according to the committee, then I think it should make its views known to the C.B.C. The wording, in effect, in clause 2(g) is practically a copy of what the C.B.C.'s mandate has been for some years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have just been asking Mr. Steele where this statement about the C.B.C.'s mandate came from. Perhaps I should ask him to explain where that statement in the Fowler report had its origin.
I presume what you are trying to suggest, Mr. Wahn, is that somebody in parliament enunciated this-that this has been what C.B.C. says it is following, therefore if we use the same kind of language there would be no change. I think that is a basically incorrect assumption.
Perhaps Mr. Steele could give the comittee the derivation of that mandate.


Mr.  G. G. E. Steele@Under Secretary of State: Committee members will undoubtedly know that there never has been placed before parliament and actually discussed, in the way in which the bill
6032	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting now sets forth, the so-called mandate of the corporation. This was their interpretation, as expressed in their own annual reports from time to time, and also, when asked by the advisory committee on broadcasting to state what their objectives were, as a corporation, the words which appear in the advisory committee report were the words which were used by the C.B.C.
The point still is that it has never really been formalized into the type of wording which now has been set down in the broadcasting bill.
I ask you, are we to consider the proportion of 1.6 per cent for enlightenment a fair or balanced proportion of the programming? What kind of direction is this? True enough, the Secretary of State has already said that the whole of clause 2 is simply declaratory. That has bothered the hon. member for Lapointe because it does not say that ownership must be of a certain nature. It has bothered the hon. member for Lotbiniere because it does not say that the French and English stations must be built immediately but uses this circumlocutory phrase "as public funds become available". It is declaratory. So why in the name of heaven does it say in subclause (g)(i), "be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion," when only 1.6 per cent is given to enlightenment while 53.7 per cent is going to light entertainment and 33.9 per cent is going to information? Are we not going to give the broadcasters of the nation more precise directions than those contained in this nebulous phrase?
It is marvellous to see the direction it involves. A broadcaster can do anything he wants to do under that phrase. The first part is declaratory. The second part does not mean a thing. The minister herself says she does not know what those words mean. If the minister herself does not know what they mean, how can any broadcaster be expected to know what they mean? Do you consider that 1.6 per cent of the time devoted to enlightenment is fair or balanced when light entertainment is 57.3 per cent? I suppose we can include in that a few prize fights that we now see today in addition to the prize fights we see on hockey rinks as broadcast on television. What is the light entertainment involved there, particularly when we know that at least one man has been killed in professional hockey recently? Is this light entertainment? I am not saying that was seen on television, but it could have been. It could happen in a game broadcast over the Canadian television networks at some time in the future.

DEBATES	January 29, 1988
Are we going to consider that light entertainment is of such prime importance to the people of this country, to the taxpayers? When we tax them are we going to say: Well, when they scream about paying their income tax at the end of April each year they only scream once, and for the other 364 days of the year we give them light entertainment in the proportion of 57.3 per cent so perhaps they will forget about it?
I think this phrase means exactly nothing. It is nebulous; it has no point. The minister says she does not know what it means. Therefore it is going to be impossible for a broadcaster to violate this declaratory injunction to the television stations and radio stations of the Dominion of Canada. I think it is foolishness even to put it on the law books of the nation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g) (i) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g)(ii) carry?


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I raised this matter earlier and referred to the white paper on broadcasting and to the government's announced intention to reserve four places in Canada for new C.B.C. television stations. Is it still the intention of the government, after the present fund crisis is over, to go ahead with the construction of C.B.C. owned stations in Saskatoon, Sudbury, Victoria, British Columbia, and the Saint John-Fredericton area of New Brunswick?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot answer that
categorically yes or no. I do not know why the government should not do as it intended, but we do not know how long the present strictures will continue. Also, we may be overtaken by drastic changes in technology which may outdate the proposed system. But I do not know why the government should not continue to maintain the position set out in the white paper, when the financial strictures are eased.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g) (ii) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g) (iii) carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, on Friday evening the Secretary of State expressed a little regret that I did not enlighten her further about the Spanish kings of 1493. She should have known that she would hear from me
January 29, 1868	COMMONS
further historical references. I note that clause 2(g)(iii) reads:
(g) the national broadcasting service should-
(ii) be in English and French, serving the special need of geographic regions, and actively contributing to the flow and exchange of cultural and regional information and entertainment,
I presume that that means splitting equally the 1.6 per cent of enlightenment by way of regional information and news into two languages. With regard to the national broadcasting service today, in English and French, it is quite noticeable in this country and has been for the past few years that there has been tremendous emphasis given to French, French, French, French, French, French, French, French, French and French. As a member said the other day, it has got to the point where the cabinet does not introduce a bill without having a clause in it two or three times to say that everything has to be in English and French.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that there were only a few French speaking people in Canada when Wolfe came over in 1758. He cleaned up at Louisburg and the following year cleaned up at Quebec. Since then Canada has been thought to be an English speaking nation. In light of this declaratory statement that the national broadcasting service should be in English and French, this in a country where the English forces under Wolfe obtained the mastery and under the British North America Act certain privileges were given to the conquered people to speak French in the legislative halls at Quebec city and in the parliamentary halls at Ottawa, I think it would be interesting to the French minority in Canada if they were to consider the situation in Alsace-Lorraine. I regret I have not the time this afternoon to speak further for the benefit of the Secretary of State on the kings of Spain and Portugal, to whom I made passing reference the other day, but I do think it is interesting to consider the situation in Alsace-Lorraine where the French are in the dominant position. It is known in history as the Kingdom of the Franks, and I hope the Secretary of State will be as interested in it as she was in Spanish history.
In the Kingdom of the Franks, involving Alsace-Lorraine, prior to 1870 the French tongue was generally spoken in the valley of the Rhine. But in 1870, as you will recall, as a result of the Franco-Prussian war the Germans overran France. They had no trouble whatever doing so. They captured Paris and
DEBATES	6083
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in Paris proclaimed the formation of the German Republic, and they brought Alsace-Lorraine into the orbit of Germany. These people became a conquered people under the heel of the conquerors, the Prussians, or as they called themselves after 1870, the German element.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I think it is interesting-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I have to say to the hon. member for York-Humber that I think he is now outside the confines of the clause before the committee. The committee is dealing with clause 2 (g) (iii) and I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to that particular subclause of the bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on clause 2 (g) (iii) and referring in particular to the phrase "in English and French". There happen to be two tongues spoken in this country and I was drawing a parallel to the handling of two tongues in Alsace-Lorraine where the two tongues are French and German. I can see a direct connection between the two tongues, French and German, in Alsace-Lorraine and the two-tongue situation in Canada involving English and French. I wish to point out that after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, when the Germans took over Alsace-Lorraine they forced the people of Alsace-Lorraine to speak German-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Again I must interrupt the hon. member and point out to him that clause 2 (g) (iii) says that the national broadcasting service should be in English and French, and I would suggest to him that any comments he has to make regarding English and French must be in relation to national broadcasting.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I sincerely hope, sir, your ruling is perfectly clear to you. Unfortunately it is not clear to me. I want to point out that in Canada the English gave the conquered people the right to speak French in the halls of parliament at Quebec city and at Ottawa. Not so in Alsace-Lorraine. The conqueror there did not grant that privilege to the conquered. Since I must confine myself to clause 2 (g) (iii), dealing with English and French, I would point out that in 1918, after Alsace-Lorraine was given back to the French-
January 29. 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I shall have to quote to the hon. member standing order 59 (2), found on page 56 of our standing orders:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I would again ask the co-operation of the hon. member for York-Humber in confining his remarks to clause 2(g) (iii).


Ralph Bronson Cowan: While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the generosity of those speaking the English tongue in conferring certain special privileges on the conquered in this country. It is too bad that elsewhere throughout the world the magnificent example shown by the English in 1867 has not been followed as one worthy of imposition in other areas. I believe there are many fields in which Canada leads and I believe that the treatment by the English of their French speaking compatriots sets an example to the world. I regret exceedingly that our French speaking compatriots have not looked upon it as a fine example to be followed in other areas where they happen to be the conquerors.
This is a declaratory clause. It binds nobody. Here it is used by the cabinet to please our French speaking compatriots. It says that the national broadcasting service should be in English and French. It says "should be". We should pay our bills. We should be civil to chairmen. We should be civil to one another. We should be civil to people of foreign tongues. The things we should be are a mile long. Unfortunately the things we do are sometimes different.
I cannot object to the passage of this subclause when I know it is only declaratory, as the Secretary of State herself has said. But why put it in if it is only declaratory? We should all be good. We should attend church. We should be moderate in our actions. What is the use of putting such declarations in our law books if there is no penalty to see that they are carried out? I am pleased to praise the English for the manner in which they treated the French in 1758 and in 1867, but I regret that the example was lost on the French of France.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, it is possible to infer from this subclause something which may not be intended. It refers to what shall be done in the case of special needs of certain regions. In regions where ethnic groups are heavily concentrated, and here I am not making any reference to the English and French


broadcasting aspect, it would seem that this subclause could be interpreted to mean that where an ethnic group forms 70 or 75 per cent of the population and has attempted over the years to maintain its language and culture, without official recognition by the state or the constitution but solely within the confines of its social institutions, then the national broadcasting service should make an effort on a regional basis to broadcast in the language of that ethnic group. I do not think this is the intent, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State if this is so.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is not the intention. The governing phrase is "be in English and French, serving the special needs." It does not say anything about other languages.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not intend to argue the point. The hon. lady has explained the intentions and I should be satisfied. I rise only to point out that one certainly could infer that something a little more was intended because it refers to the special needs of geographic regions and in some regions of the country the special need has to do with the language and culture of ethnic groups other than English and French. However, in these days and times when we are confronted with the major problem of Canadian unity I certainly do not wish to be a party to complicating matters further.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on some remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). One of these conquered individuals may be allowed to say a few words about his conquerors. Supposing the member for York-Humber had been a captain in the army of General Wolfe when he achieved victory and then, in his words, Canada-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He was in charge of knifing in the back.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand what the hon. Secretary of State said.
The fact remains that I should like to remind my hon. friend for York-Humber that none of the conquests in the world has ever helped the conquerors. England conquered India and what happened? It had to withdraw.
January 29, 19G8	COMMONS


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that the remarks he is now making are not relevant to the clause before the committee.
[ Translation\


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I come back to the paragraph under consideration. I should like to add that France conquered some countries from which it later had to withdraw. And why, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. Habel:: France wants to conquer
Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I point out to my hon. friend for Cochrane that France has no intention whatsoever of conquering Quebec.
And so, I say to my hon. friend for York-Humber that all the imperialist countries that made conquests had to withdraw. The time has now come for the friends of the hon. member for York-Humber to withdraw.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I again must ask the hon. member for Lapointe to confine his remarks to the subclause before the committee. He is not doing that now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I said what I had to say.
This clause deals with a French-language broadcasting service and I have no objection quite the opposite, I support it. On the other hand, I object to the desires and wishes of the member for York-Humber in trying to compare Quebec to a conquered people. I know that, in this house, many share his views. Maybe I should congratulate him on being the only one who dares to utter out loud what others think and whisper among their friends. The member for York-Humber for one has the courage to say so. If a secret vote were held in this house, I believe that the majority would approve what the member for York-Humber has just said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g)(iii) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2(g)(iv) carry?


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister has left the chamber for a few
27053-384J
DEBATES	6085
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting moments. I would prefer to discuss this subclause in the presence of the minister. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether we have disposed of clause 2(c) yet?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert William Prittie: I wonder whether the Chair would consider reverting clause 2(c) in the absence of the minister.


An hon. Member:: She is right here.


Robert William Prittie: I see that the minister is not far away, Mr. Chairman. I will go ahead with my remarks in respect of clause 2(g)(iv). The subclause provides that the national broadcasting service should:
-contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity;
When this bill was first introduced I did not express my misgivings about the wording referring to national unity. This is a very difficult thing to do. No one wishes to speak against the words "national unity" since this would perhaps leave him open to the charge that he is against national unity. However, I did express some thoughts on this matter earlier. I question very much whether these words should be contained in subclause 2(g)(iv).
First of all, I do not really believe that the government is too serious about this provision because when we asked that it be considered as a charge upon all broadcasters in Canada the amendment was defeated. At the time I pointed out that there are more private than public radio and television stations in Canada and that if national unity is important it should be the duty of all broadcasters in the Canadian system to promote national unity. I hear remarks about the private stations. We have already declared in clause 2 that the airwaves belong to everyone. Some private stations broadcast in French at certain times and, though not directly from taxes, about $120,000 or $130,000 of the money of the people of Canada is being used to support this service. However, the government has rejected our amendment.
I rather feel that subclause (g) is adequate as it stands. It requires the national broadcasting service to provide a balanced service. As the hon. member for York-Humber claims, the service may not be balanced but it is possible to achieve balance by means of sports programs, public affairs programs, comedy, drama and so on. Second, it can be extended to all parts of Canada if we are
January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting willing to pay for it. Third, it can be in both languages if we are willing to pay for it.
The question of national unity is a difficult one. I do not think it can be defined at all. When speaking the other day the hon. member for Hochelaga said, as reported at page 6017 of Hansard-I am paraphrasing his words-that he doubted the justification of the provision. At that time he was speaking against the amendment I had proposed in respect of subclause (b). I notice that the minister when speaking on another amendment used words which are rather appropriate. When the hon. member for Red Deer presented an amendment to another subclause she had this to say, as reported on page 5917 of Hansard for January 24:
I do not think that anyone should be required to decide, as a matter of statute law, what a broadly held opinion is.
May I interject to say that one could say the same thing about national unity. The minister continued:
Those who are in this chamber or in public life know that broadly held opinions in this country may vary almost daily or almost hourly. To ask some individual to determine what a broadly held opinion is, is to place on that individual an unsupportable burden.
She went on to say that the words are innocuous. This was in respect of the amendment presented by the hon. member for Red Deer. These words may be innocuous, Mr. Chairman, but they may not be. I have looked at the statutes governing the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television authority. These statutes do not require these broadcasters to promote national unity although they deal with a complex country. The words may not be innocuous because they might be used against people under certain conditions.
I am sure the present minister and the present government have no intention to engage in a witch hunt against the people employed in broadcasting. I am sure also that the new senior officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are not the type of people who would do that. However, under certain conditions of management this could be done. When one is in that frame of mind one is apt to consider almost anybody whose expressions of opinion are at variance with those of the majority to be a person subject, in this case, to being fired because of not promoting national unity.
[Mr. Prittie.l
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We might as well be frank about this. Where do these words come from? They are not in the previous broadcasting act. They result, I am sure, from the fact that members of the government caucus have said we must get at these separatists in Radio Canada at Montreal. I know this controversy has been going on for some time and I have heard members of this house from the province of Quebec denounce the separatists and so-called separatists in Radio Canada at Montreal.
It seems to me that if there is a problem here it is a problem for the management of the corporation. The minister will probably reply that management has not done its job in the past, that there is new management and that if there is a problem new management ought to see that the producers in Montreal and elsewhere carry out their duty to see that there is a balanced presentation on controversial public programs. I am afraid that with these words in the law people will be able to use them at some time in the future to say that management is weak and that this person or that person is working against national unity and should be fired.


An hon. Member:: Or an individual
program.


Robert William Prittie: We have already heard a number of complaints about programs. I realize this is not an easy argument to make but it seems to me that if the requirements of broadcasters, as contained in subclause (g) (i) and subclause (g) (iv), in respect of expression of Canadian identity are adhered to there would be adequate control without the necessity of these words which specifically suggest that broadcasters must promote national unity. I find this objectionable and I therefore move:
That clause 2(g) of Bill C-163 he amended by deleting the words "contribute to the development of national unity and".
Clause 2 (g) would then simply read, "provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity."
To continue for one moment, let me say I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe is anxiously waiting to support my amendment. This gives me some misgivings because I recall that after the bill was introduced the premier of Quebec called it "Fascist". I do not go so far as to use such strong words. I also recall that the producers in Montreal communcated their feelings to the minister. I think I agree with the views they expressed
January 29, 1968

although they expressed them rather strongly. Regardless of who are the allies one might have in a matter like this, I think this is a phrase we ought not include In our broadcasting act.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As my hon. friend knows, the objection which was raised was contained in a telegram to me on October 26 from the association of producers in Montreal. I responded to that telegram by letter on November 9, in which I set out the whole purport of the bill and repeated things which were said at the very beginning of broadcasting legislation in Canada by the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Bennett. He indicated that one of the purposes of setting up a broadcasting system, which was then of course only radio, was to have a more effective instrument for nation building. He also referred to it as an agency by which a national consensus might be fostered and national unity still further strengthened.
It seems to me that from the beginning of broadcasting in Canada that has been one of its goals. Indeed, were this not an aim there would seem to be very little reason to have broadcasting publicly underwritten in this country. We have our transportation systems, public and private. We have a number of other institutions which have developed uniquely in Canada with the private paralleling the public. The reason we still have the public system as well as the private relates to the special role the public system has in unifying a country whose national pull is north to south rather than east to west. The whole purpose of establishing a broadcasting facility in this country was really to foster Canadianism. Therefore I cannot accede to my hon. friend's suggestion that these words should be removed.
With the permission of the committee I would ask that the correspondence of the producers association, which is attached as an exhibit to the proceedings of the committee, be shown as an appendix to these proceedings. This correspondence clearly sets out, as I think it should, what is meant by national unity within the provisions of this act.
I might say that following that exchange of correspondence no public outcry or speech of any kind has ever been made, nor has there been a further objection or complaint received by my office from any source in this regard. There has only been the discussion my hon. friend and I have had here and before the parliamentary committee. It would
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting seem to me that while hon. members may be particularly interested in discussing this matter, the words contained in this correspondence illustrate the intent of the legislation and its draftsmen. If my hon. friend and other members of the committee have no objection I will ask that the correspondence in both languages be appended to these proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That cannot be done while we are in committee but I have no objection to the request being made when we are back in the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will do that at six o'clock.


Mr. McCleave:: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Before we go any further, I wish to point out what I think is a difference between the
6088	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting English and the French version of the bill. The English version talks of "Canadian identity", and the French version uses the expression "realite canadienne". In my opinion, the two expressions do not have exactly the same meaning.
If I had to translate the expression used in the English version, I would translate it as "identite canadienne" and not "realite canadienne". I should like to know which of these two is the official version, and I would ask the hon. Secretary of State what she means by this expression, for there is a difference between the French and the English version in this respect.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I am not a linguistic expert, but I think that to translate "identity" by "identity" would be an Anglicism.
In my opinion, the translation of "identity" by "realite" in French is quite accurate, but the word "identite" would be an Anglicism.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, because "identite" is a French word and not an anglicism. To identify means exactly to personalize something or give a complete definition, while the word "realite" is not at all identifiable. The identity is always real, but reality is not always identifiable.


Albert Béchard: I did not mention the word "to identify"; I spoke about the word "identite", as the hon. member for Lapointe did earlier.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State could perhaps indicate what should be the meaning of the term "Canadian identity."


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, unless my hon. friend has some indication that there is an obvious error, I would point out that the government of Canada hires people to do these translations. I am unhappily, certainly not as bilingual as my hon. friend. Realities are clear to most people. I must be guided by my hon. friend, my parliamentary secretary, who is far more bilingual than I am and who says that "reality" is the French equivalent of "identity", in one sense at least. Unless my hon. friend can indicate that it is quite improper, perhaps other learned linguists in the chamber have some comments to offer with respect to this matter.

DEBATES	January 29, 1968


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I do not particularly like to be introduced as a learned person-


David Lewis: She did not say that. She said "learned linguist".


Gérard Pelletier: That even less.

But I am sorry to disagree on that matter. The parliamentary secretary is probably right: "identite canadienne", in French, looks like a translation and it is probably an Anglicism. But it seems to me that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is right when he says that there is an important difference of meaning between "realite canadienne" and "Canadian identity".
In my opinion, the word "identity" describes the particular character of a group of people. It is a word which refers to a cultural context, whereas the term "realite canadienne" seems much better to me because television, radio, the whole field of broadcasting must bring to the people the whole reality, for instance the industrial development as well as the physical nature of Canada. There are probably in Nova Scotia people who will never know what British Columbia looks like except from what they see on television or in the movies.
I think there is an obvious difference in meaning, which could lead to some misunderstandings.
Now, not being a learned linguist, I would not know how to translate "realite canadienne" into English, but I would much rather have that than translate "Canadian identity" by "identity canadienne", a term which seems to me rather dubious in French, as the parliamentary secretary said, and which does not translate the exact meaning of "Canadian identity".
I think that this is really a problem of different concepts instead of linguistics. I very well understand the drafters who used the term "realite canadienne", because in my understanding and that of the majority of us, about the role of broadcasting, it is a question of translating the whole Canadian fact with all its aspects, its spiritual aspect as well as its industrial, material and physical aspects. Broadcasting is meant for everyone and must reflect all the aspects of life.
I would rather ask English-speaking learned linguists to translate into English the words "realite canadienne".
January 29, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6089
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a die- The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Is the
tionary here with the definition-	committee ready for the question?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Would it not be better to deal with the amendment and then, to deal with a question, if it arises?


Gilles Grégoire: In the amendment, the words "identite canadienne" are mentioned. Had it been "realite canadienne", I would have voted for the amendment, but if we leave the words "identite canadienne", then I cannot vote for the amendment.
Let us see what it means in French.
Identite: ce qui fait qu'une chose est de meme nature qu'une autre. Ensemble de circonstances qui font qu'une personne est bien telle personne determine.
Then, it would be because of circumstances that Canada is really Canada.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I should be very happy to use the word "reality" in both languages, if that will make hon. members content.


David Lewis: That is pretty poor English.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I doubt that it will make hon. members content. What is "reality"?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, is the minister changing the word in the English version to "reality"?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is meaningless in
English.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Are you going to accept the word "reality"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, to please you.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a long speech. I hope the Secretary of State will think about the matter a little before she yields to this suggestion and uses the words "Canadian reality". In any case the French is in the plural, as I remember. I do not know exactly what "Canadian reality" would mean. "Identity" to the English speaking person has meaning. The only suggestion that occurs to me is to use the word "personnalite" in French as the translation of "identity", but that probably makes it worse.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe. He said he could not vote for this clause until the word was changed. I do not think that argument carries much weight-


David Lewis: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -because he will probably vote against it in any event.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. member for Hochelaga likes it or not, I consider him to be a learned person. I am going to pay him the compliment of quoting him because I thought what he said the other day was very well put. I refer to the hon. member's remarks as reported on page 6017 of Hansard. He was speaking to an amendment that I had moved to subclause (d) with regard to national unity and he said, according to the English translation:
It is so normal to provide that a public broadcasting system will contribute to Canadian solidarity that the mere fact of mentioning it, of writing it out in full, may lead some people to believe that it is not a matter of promotion but of propaganda, which is, as I can testify, far from the intentions, both of the government, that has drafted the legislation, and of the committee which has considered the matter.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is quite true. As I mentioned earlier, the hon. member stated that he had some misgivings about the expression. Being familiar with people in the field of broadcasting he will know the fear they have-it is not that I am against national unity or that he is or that many of his friends in broadcasting are-of the use to which this type of legislation can be put. I suppose national unity can mean anything. At the very least it means keeping Canada together as a country. What does this mean when you apply it to various people? Mr. Rene Levesque does not believe that Quebec should continue to be part of confederation, nor does Mr. Pierre Bourgault or Mr. Gilles Gregoire.


David Lewis: Who is he?


Robert William Prittie: If some producer in Montreal puts these people on programs, is he to be charged by some person who looks at a program with not contributing to national unity, and is he to be fired? There is a possible danger of that happening. I am sure the minister would not do it, but if we put it into the

January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting legislation and if someone wishes to get at someone he suspects of being a separatist, whether it is proved or not, there will be justification for taking that kind of action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for York South that the Secretary of State not make the change to which she is willing to agree. It seems to me there is nothing wrong with parliament legislating the same concept in different words in the two languages. If we pass the bill with the French version reading "realite canadienne" and the English version "Canadian identity", then the bill is the law of the land. I do not know enough of the French language to know what damage it would do to the French version to change what is there now, but I do know enough English to say that it would have no meaning at all for us to say that the national broadcasting system should provide for a continuing expression of Canadian reality. That has no meaning at all. I suggest that "Canadian identity" remain in the English version and "realite canadienne" remain in the French version.


Gilles Grégoire: The two phrases do not have the same meaning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the meaning which we get from the phrases is the same even if the words are different, just as the words "ask" and "demand" are different.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: May the
Chair suggest that we dispose of the amendment and then carry on the discussion which is taking place now? I think this would be in order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you are asking us to vote first on the amendment before coming back to the main question and then discuss the accuracy of the expression.
But, in my opinion, the amendment seeks to restrict the subclause to the following words:
-the national broadcasting service should provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
We are therefore being asked to vote for such a term. That is why I wonder whether it would not be better to first settle the problem
[Mr. PrittieJ
of the definition and then ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he really wants us to pass a piece of legislation with different meanings in English and in French, but in whose two versions would nevertheless be official? I would be surprised if that was his intention.
{English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: My answer to that is that what parliament passes is authentic in both languages, and if we pass a bill with one expression in one language and another expression in the other each of these expressions is authentic. As we have heard from the hon. member for Hochelaga and from others who are fluent in the French language we are getting the same idea from the phrases "realite Canadienne" and "Canadian identity".


Howard Earl Johnston: I think we should realize that the operative part of the original paragraph is "contribute to the development of national unity" but as this is such a sensitive topic in Canada today I am sure the people who assisted in the drafting of this paragraph realized that that sort of unadorned statement would be far too meaningful to be let in the bill as it is and that it had better be dressed up slightly in both languages. So we now have a little ornamentation added to soften the charge on the C.B.C. that it contribute to national unity.
I really do not see what the hon. member for Lapointe is worried about if the phrase is meaningless in both languages. I cannot see why we should be too excited about it. I would have had some sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond if it had been to delete the window dressing following the phrase "national unity". We know that he presented a worth-while amendment to subclause (d) when we were considering the bill earlier which urged that the entire broadcasting system contribute to the national unity of the country. I expressed a half-formed suspicion at that time that what the hon. member was doing was to strike at the clause now before us and the charge on the public broadcasting section of the system to concern itself with the development of national unity. I would have thought that a sense of propriety or embarrassment would have prevented the hon. member from rising today to move an amendment eliminating from public broadcasting what previously was a worth-while addition to the entire system.
January 29, 19S8	COMMONS
I think we should reject the amendment and accept the clause as it is because if we cannot charge any part of the broadcasting system with concerning itself with national unity then we are in a parlous state regarding national unity. I would not worry too much about propaganda and its possibilities because we are well aware of how extensive this practice is. All governments in all parts of the world engage in this activity and that it can have most worthy ends as well as more devious ones at times. I believe the clause is a reasonable one and that the amendment, in the light of the debate at a previous sitting of the house, is most strange and should be rejected.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no objection to the French version of the amendment of the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) being put to a vote. It stipulates:
That the national broadcasting system should provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
The Canadian identity is very simple. The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada put it very well last night, at the banquet of the Quebec branch of the Liberal Federation of Canada, when he said: There is a power group in Canada which wants to try to make Quebec more independent.
That is the Canadian reality. But if the national broadcasting system should provide for the continuing expression of Canadian identity, that is, recognize that there is in Quebec a group that is powerful enough-as the right hon. Prime Minister said-and who thinks that, in the whole present Canadian context, it is preferable that Quebec be independent, both for the people of Quebec and for those outside the province, and if this is the expression of Canadian reality in that case, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of the amendment and I think it should be supported.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am glad the hon. member for Lapointe has made things so clear. Since there has been no amendment with respect to either the French or the English versions and I would assume they will stand the way they are printed in English and French, and since
DEBATES	6091
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting no one else has since moved to change it we will leave it as "realite Canadienne" and all we will have to do is deal with the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, clause 2 (g) (iv) will read in French as follows:
. .. contribuer au developpement de l'unite natio-nale et exprimer constamment la realite canadienne;


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, that is what I wanted.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, the hon. member made it clear what the difference would mean.
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: That is exactly what I said, leave in the French version the words:
-realite canadienne.
In fact, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that the French version was as binding in law as the English version. If that is the case, our national broadcasting service must express the Canadian reality.
As stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) there is in Quebec a group of people who believe and fight sincerely because they feel it would be good for Quebec to become independent. That is the Canadian reality and that is what the C.B.C. should express.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers this afternoon, in commenting on the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, expressed regret at the action of the hon. member in so doing. I should like to congratulate him on his integrity. A while ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond moved an amendment which would have called upon the private sector of the Canadian broadcasting world to be subject to the same directions as the national broadcasting system with regard to Canadian unity and Canadian identity. This was a very worthwhile amendment to an ill-prepared bill and it should have been adopted by this committee. When it was voted down I felt 100 per cent certain that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, being the honourable man he is, would move to have this clause with
January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting regard to directions to the national broadcasting service deleted because he wants the private sector of broadcasting to be operating under the same directives as the national broadcasting system. I sincerely believe that this clause should be eliminated for the simple reason that these directives are not to be made applicable to the private sector, as was the wish of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
I have been sitting here during the protracted discussion of this bill and I have heard hon. members talking about the development of national unity. Most members seem to refer to the development of the two-nation concept, national unity for the French speaking people and national unity for the English speaking people, according to the peculiar belief they have that there are two nations in this country. Who can argue with that interpretation of national unity if these people believe there are two nations in this country of Canada? They are fully entitled to argue that we should develop national unity on that basis.
While I was listening to that interesting interpretation of the phrase "national unity" I could not help but think of the Solicitor General who represents the riding of Brant-Hal-dimand because he has six nations in his constituency. Is the C.B.C. to be entrusted with the development of national unity for the six nations that exist there, which were recognized by Queen Victoria and are recognized by Canada today as the Six Nations Confederacy? There are six nations in the riding of Brant-Haldimand.
We have some members, notably the hon. member for Lapointe, who argue that there are two nations in this country. I was very distressed during the summer by the loss of two very great close friends of mine whom I have known intimately for 35 years. One of them was the late Mr. Harry Benjamin of Montreal and the other the late Mr. Leo Pap-erny of Calgary, Alberta. My life is going to be much poorer as a result of the death of these two men, close friends of mine, in widely separated parts of Canada. I looked forward to every possible contact with them and enjoyed their company at all times. In memory of these two magnificent Canadians-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order,
please. I know all members of the committee are very sympathetic with regard to the loss the hon. member has sustained but at the moment we are speaking to the amendment


proposed by the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond. I ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to that amendment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I intend to finish my remarks, and if you will hear me out you will understand the phrase "national unity". I paid $30 to the Jewish national fund for the planting of trees in memory of my friend the late Harry Benjamin of Montreal and I paid $30 to the Jewish national fund, Marlee avenue, Toronto, in memory of my friend the late Leo Paperny of Calgary. Over the week end I received in the mail my official receipt for $60 from the Jewish national fund, Marlee avenue, Toronto. Some may talk about nationalism but I am talking about national unity, the Jewish national fund of Toronto and the Six Nations Confederacy. These gentlemen here, members of the House of Commons, talk about two nations in Canada. I believe this amendment should be supported.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but in my view he is not speaking to the amendment which is under consideration.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I regret that I am prohibited from expressing myself on what you are talking about.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Shame.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Prittie) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 42.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subclause 2(g) Civ) carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before subparagraph 2 (g) (iv) is passed, I should like to say why I agree to it.
To contribute to the development of national unity does not mean much in itself; it all depends upon the interpretation given to these words.
The Prime Minister clearly said that there are two nations in Canada and I agree with him on that. During their recent convention the Progressive Conservatives approved this concept of two nations in Canada, two founding nations. If they still exist, there are two nations, in Canada. If one disappeared, let us say so. Our friends the members of the New Democratic party also supported this concept of two nations.
January 29, 19G8	COMMONS
Therefore, there are two nations in Canada. If they are founding nations, they still exist. If they no longer exist, let it be proclaimed. If one of the two founding nations has disappeared, let it be proclaimed.
I wonder whether the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) would rise and say that one of the two founding nations has disappeared. What will the hon. members for Hochelaga, Levis, Chicoutimi, Champlain (Messrs. Pelletier, Guay, Langlois and Matte) say, what will all the hon. members from Quebec say when they are told that one of the founding nations has disappeared, that we have disappeared? Have we disappeared, or are we still alive? We are a founding nation; we have not disappeared. If we are one of the two founding nations, we must still exist and still be one of the two living nations in Canada. Two nations, that I do believe in; it is a concept almost unanimously accepted in the house. In fact, all parties have accepted the principle of the two nations. So, the House of Commons unanimously accepts the fact that there are two nations in Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
National unity is mentioned. If the term "nations" has a meaning, when used as a substantive, it must inevitably keep the same meaning when used as an adjective. In the expression "two nations", it is used as a substantive. Then, national unity is mentioned. So, it should have the same meaning. In fact, what does national unity mean? It is unity within a nation. It does not mean unity of two nations. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) wants to contradict me, let him!
National unity is exactly what it says. When the intention is to speak of unity between two nations, the term "international unity" is used.
I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources protesting. Let him give us his argument, unless the French words no longer have any meaning. Unity between two nations means international unity. That is the definition of the term. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not agree, he should return to France to learn again the meaning of the words. It is clear: unity between two nations is international unity. So, there are two nations in Canada. If unity between two nations was referred to, inevitably the term "international unity" would be used. That is not what is being said. National unity is mentioned. There are two nations in Canada and that has been accepted by all parties in the house.
DEBATES	6093
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
It is so true that we have two broadcasting systems, the French network and the English network. Furthermore, we have two national anthems, two national flags. Everything being done relates to two nations.
Therefore, contributing to the development of national unity means that there must be unity within each of the two nations: national unity of the French group and national unity of the English group. That is what this means and on this point, I agree. Mr. Chairman, I will be voting for the paragraph because I feel each nation must find its unity for a better understanding and then for better direction.
That was the function of the Estates General of French Canada: to achieve the national unity of French Canadians, to create a French Canadian national philosophy.
To my mind, the C.B.C. must co-operate in the purpose set down by the Estates General, that is to rebuild the French-Canadian national unity, to state a French-Canadian ideology. In fact, that is what this bill states.
I think that in order to be more specific, the wording should read: contribute to the development of both national unities, both the French-Canadian and English-Canadian national unities, because we do not wish to be the only ones to be united. We also want the English-Canadian group living in Canada to find its unity again. Today, unfortunately, it tends more and more to lose it, because it is allowing itself to be assimilated by the Americans. It should also regain a national identity and a national purpose. I hope it does, in the same way as the French-Canadian group is trying to recover its national identity, a national unity, a national purpose, a national ideology.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the hon. member for York-Humber was perfectly right in suggesting that the term "two nations" is accepted by all parties. Therefore national unity necessarily means, beyond any doubt, the unity of all French-Canadians towards their common objective, that is, their own ideology, their own entity. For the English Canadians, it would also mean national unity within their group. I hope they find it as soon as possible, because they tend increasingly to become Americanized instead of endeavouring to establish a true English Canadian national identity.
For our part, we are trying more and more to find our French-Canadian national unity.
January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the member tor Lapointe get away with this. I must point out to him that when he speaks of nations his argument is completely fallacious. He disregards completely the fact that a group of persons with a common tongue, common mores, customs and way of life, can live together with a group of people on the same territory and pursue common goals; this, to my mind, constitutes a true nation.
When the hon. member for Lapointe wants us to believe that the nation is rather an ethnical matter, I think that he is completely wrong. And even in a separated Quebec, there would not even be a single nation, because nevertheless, there would be an Englishspeaking minority and it would also be a polyethnical and multilingual society.
Therefore, if the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to separate up to that point, he should leave parliament where he is a poor representative when he speaks thus.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my comments are so true that when the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) wishes to compare the concept of nation with that of territory, I must tell him that he is mistaken.
North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam are two quite distinct geographic areas, but they make up a single nation. West Germany and East Germany occupy two distinct territories as far as political geography is concerned, but they make only one nation, and the German people would only be too glad to become one entity again, because they are in fact one nation. The same applies to Korea.
This is why I say to the member for Dollard that he is mistaken when he assimilates the word "nation" to the word "territory". In our present-day world, one can think of a number of examples where nations extend beyond their territories and of other examples where nations do not respond to the notion of territory at all. In Canada, for example, we have two nations in what we can call today one country.
On the other hand, in Germany, there is one nation and two countries.
The hon. member for Dollard makes therefore a mistake when he compares the concept of "nation" to that of a political territory and I believe that the example of Germany, of Korea and of Viet Nam will show him that he is wrong.
The same could be said of communist China and Nationalist China: one nation only, even though there are two territories at the

present time, because that may be temporary. There is, in the history of the world, a certain temporariness relating to a number of political territories and countries. Such is the case in Germany, Viet Nam, Korea and also Canada, for the very reason that those nations were artificially created, as stated so well by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas). We must not, as the hon. member for Dollard is trying to do, confuse the notion of territory with that of nation. That is why I suggest that my definition of a nation is the right one.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe would need some retraining in the political sciences.


Gilles Grégoire: I think the member for Dollard would need more than just retraining.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee will now revert to clause 2 (c). At the last sitting the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona proposed an amendment which sought to add between the words "expression" and "subject" in line 19 the following:
*-and the right of Canadians to receive all broadcast programs available to them, e (5:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to delay the business of the house but we have been back to this clause a number of times and my hon. friend has been trying to find a form of words that I would find acceptable. Therefore I think I owe it to him and the committee to say why I do not find his present words acceptable. The difficulty is that the phrase uses the qualifying word "available". You can only put a technical interpretation on that, it seems to me. If you have the technical means for transmitting broadcasts you can make broadcasts available. If someone comes along and says, "I have an open frequency for radio and/or a channel for television and the money to buy equipment, "that person can make a program available. If that formal language were adopted you would have to issue a licence when someone like that came along, without giving the matter any other consideration. Even where
January 29, 1988	COMMONS
issuing a licence in such circumstances might be undesirable you would have to issue it. To make a program available you must have a transmitter and then you must have a number of people who receive that program.
Surely there is more to the regulation of our broadcasting system than this, and here I am referring to the word "available" in the limited definition that I have emphasized. We have to look into all kinds of things, as the
B.	B.G. has done for the last ten years and is still doing. We have the obligation to decide whether under certain circumstances to permit a C.A.T.V. licence to be issued, as the hon. member knows. Good heavens, we have heard the hon. member for York-Humber about eight or nine times already on the subject of C.A.T.V.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: More.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When the B.B.G. turns
down an application it gives reasons. Some of those are that they do not want an area to be taken up by C.A.T.V. They may refuse a
C.	A.T.V. licence because of the possibility of C.B.C. or private stations, which originate programs, coming along. I think that all in the chamber agree that stations which broadcast originating programs are preferable to C.A.T.V. If we do not have originating stations in the country, how can we have Canadian television? Most C.A.T.V. programs are brought in from another country, and in no ease yet have there been any C.A.T.V. applications which they meant to be originating stations.
The board has to look at a lot of things. For instance, the only channel that is open may be the one that the C.A.T.V. people are applying for and the board may feel that it should hold that channel open. Of course, if the hon. member means that everyone has the right to receive everything that is available, that is different. There would be no reason, unless it were technical, for the B.B.G. to require an examination of that right.
I think that the statement in the amendment is too wide. It is too much to say that there is an inalienable and unquestioned right to hear, in that sense. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.


David Lewis: May I ask a question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When I have finished. As I said previously, we took advice from the B.B.G. and the Department of Justice. Neither department felt content with the language and we tried, as did the hon. member, to
DEBATES	6095
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting provide something which could express what he wants, that is, that people have the right to hear, under certain circumstances. I do not think it is for us to make that an absolute or complete right, as it would appear to be from the amendment.
If my hon. friend persists and feels that he must put something in, he might like to examine subclause (j) of clause 2 which says:
-the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system should be flexible and readily adaptable to scientific and technical advances;
That paragraph is so worded in order to take account of any technical advances and other factors that may come along, the effect of which would be to give to Canadian broadcasters the cheapest and most efficient means of broadcasting.
In considering this amendment perhaps my hon. friend might wish to add to this subclause words such as "in order that Canadians may enjoy the widest practical range of broadcasting services." I do not know whether that says what he means but it would spell out the objective of the widest possible choice of service within the context of the regulation and supervision of the system. A minimum of such regulation and supervision is necessary in order to let the system fit together. It is therefore with reluctance, having spent several days trying to find a consensus, that I must say I am not prepared to accept the amendment.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do not accept the minister's argument. Apparently she objects to language that says Canadians may receive programs that are available. I think that was reasonable language. I do not know whether to withdraw the amendment, especially since the minister's argument was essentially the argument that her officials had put forward. Her reasoning, I understand, is the reasoning of her officials as evidenced in their appearance before the committee. I moved my amendment because at the end of subclause (c) is found the language "subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned." From my reading of those words that involves the right to freedom of expression.
In her explanation the minister has said that that right does not mean that anyone can start a television station and begin broadcasting anywhere merely because he can broadcast or rebroadcast certain signals through his equipment. The minister objected to the right of freedom of expression previously just as she now objects to the right to receive any programs that are available. If our right to
6096	COMMONS
Extension of Railway Facilities receive whatever is available is curtailed, then surely our right to freedom of expression is affected, because the language of my amendment is the same in spirit as the language of a previous subclause that I referred to. Naturally, the rules and regulations are there and they affect those who are affected by this legislation. Nevertheless the minister's reasoning, which follows the reasoning of her officials leaves me cold.
It is late today but I want the committee to know that I intend tomorrow to move another amendment which will be milder than the one I moved before. Instead of including the words "all programs available" my new amendment will read, "and the right of persons to receive programs". That change will remove the words to which the minister objects. I hope the committee will give favourable consideration to my new amendment. We must have certain rights and I submit that the right to freedom to receive should be included in this clause. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. Since it is 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.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate this afternoon in committee of the whole I offered, with the consent of the house, to have made an appendix to Hansard an exchange of correspondence which I had, the original being in French, with the Association des Realisateurs of Montreal with respect to the term regarding national unity which appears in clause 2(g)(iv). If the house would now consent I would like to have this correspondence annexed to Hansard in order that it will be clear in future what parliament intended by this particular phrase.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
as follows: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Airports-Vancouver -protest against imposition of tolls on approach; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), Grain-wheat-inquiry as to increased delivery quotas; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Power- British Columbia-location of neutron generator.
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.



TRANSPORT


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake) moved:: That the question of providing railway facilities and services between Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan, and Heinsburg, Alberta, be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications, and that it be an instruction to the committee to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations with respect to the question within thirty days after it has been referred.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this motion I do so in the belief that the matter is one of considerable urgency and great importance not only to a large number of producing Canadians in northwestern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta but to the national economy as well. This is not the first occasion on which I have tried to impress upon the house the importance of this question. I would refer Your Honour to my remarks, reported in Hansard for January 13, 1967, page 11761, during the clause by clause consideration of the bill dealing with railway line abandonment.
At the present time there is no direct rail connection between Alberta and Saskatchewan north of the North Saskatchewan river. This leaves a huge gap in railway transportation in an area of Canada that is producing great benefits for the nation as a whole and whose potential in mineral development, mixed farming and other industry is tremendous.
Briefly the picture is that one east-west line of the C.P.R. ends at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, leaving a gap of approximately 75 miles between that point and Grand Centre in Alberta. A little farther south a C.N.R. line ends at St. Walburg, leaving a transportation gap of about 50 miles between there and Heinsburg, Alberta. Farther south still, and
January 29, 1968	COMMONS
just north of the Saskatchewan river, a C.N.R. branch line stops at Frenchman Butte. This line branches off the St. Walburg line of the C.N.R. at Spruce Lake and is 28 miles in length. Between Frenchman Butte and Heins-burg, Alberta, is a gap of 38 miles. This pyramid of missing railway connections leaves no rail transportation north of the North Saskatchewan river from Edmonton to North Battleford and Prince Albert. I do not believe that there can be any sound, progressive development of the rich mineral and agricultural areas of northwestern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta until this gap is filled.
I suggest that the soundest method of filling the gap is by the C.N.R. completing the 38 mile stretch between Frenchman Butte and Heinsburg. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the branch line between Spruce Lake and Frenchman Butte is one of those slated to go under the axe of rail line abandonment. That is why I believe the matter is urgent, as I said earlier, not only for the people of the area but for the whole country. Because it is urgent and important I believe it advisable for this question to be placed before the standing committee on transport and communications immediately, with instructions to the committee to make recommendations upon it within 30 days. I ask the house to consider my motion favourably from the standpoint of the national interest. I ask hon. members to send this question to the committee before it is too late to do anything about it.
I remember the time 40 years ago when the railways were fighting to get rights to build westward through our area. I remember the great plans and announcements of the railway at the time the first sod was turned at Shell-brook in 1928 for the line which the railway company today dismisses as a mere branch line and expendable. In those days the veteran settlers and pioneers of the area were promised that it was to be the start of a great main line connection linking Prince Albert, North Battleford and other cities and towns in Saskatchewan with their western neighbours north of the river. For half a century this dream has been dangled before our eyes. Now after 50 years of empty promises we are to lose even the dream through the proposed plan of rail line abandonment. I urge hon. members to consider this matter carefully before it is too late.
The C.N.R. even went so far some years ago as to prepare a right of way, a roadbed
DEBATES	6097
Extension of Railway Facilities for the connection between St. Walburg and Grand Centre. But this too was abandoned. Today trees grow on that roadbed. That link is dead.
But the shorter and easier route a little to the south remains a sound possibility. It is comparatively easy ground from a construction point of view. It takes in the old district of Fort Pitt, Onion Lake and Seekaskootch Indian reserve which is excellent mixed farming territory. A railway line would help greatly to open up an area fabulously rich in mineral wealth.
I recall how many people scoffed when the former Conservative government undertook to encourage the construction of the Pine Point railway line. It was laughed at as a wilderness line, a line to nowhere. We all know today the manner in which this project paid off for Canada. I believe that the line I am suggesting be considered will also pay big dividends for the people of the area and, through them, for Canada as a whole. Apart entirely from consideration of dividends and other payments I believe this line is required in the name of simple justice. It would be the fulfilment of promises and undertakings made years ago by both railway companies when they were desperate to acquire rights to build lines in that area. For years they reaped the advantage of a selective system of railroad operation that had nothing to do with the convenience or commercial interests of the residents but rested solely on profits for the railroads.
e (6:10 p.m.)
The railway has an obligation to the people of this area to construct this one small line. If the railway is unwilling to do so voluntarily it should be compelled by parliament to do it. I believe I have said sufficient to convince reasonable people that this question deserves immediate consideration by the standing committee. It has been brought forward by myself on numerous occasions. I have been joined in my representations by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) who has seconded this motion as being the best means by which to insist upon early consideration of this matter.
In concluding my remarks I should like to say that this question is one which is of truly urgent as well as national and local importance. I trust that the house will see fit to refer the matter to the standing committee on transport and communications in the terms outlined in my notice of motion.
6098	COMMONS
Extension of Railway Facilities


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I should like to know what produce would be carried on this line of 18 miles. Are there any mineral deposits or is there any agricultural production which might be developed? Could the hon. member give us an indication in this regard? Second, could he tell us whether this line is intended to come under the axe as a result of branch line abandonment and, if so, what would be the use of extending it another 38 miles if that extension in turn is to be axed?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, may I first answer the hon. gentleman's question concerning the produce and the wealth lying along this line which would warrant such an expenditure. This is very good mixed farming country. In linking up with Heins-burg, Alberta there would be access to what I believe is one of the wealthiest salt mines in northern Canada. All the way through there are mineral deposits. This line would link up with the Indian reservation at Seekaskootch. This is a large tract of good farm land. In fairness to these people I think this railway line is warranted. It would give them access to Prince Albert for their timber and pulp-wood. This Paradise Hill country is considered to be one of the best farming areas in northwestern Saskatchewan. From Frenchman Butte the terrain over the 38 miles is all good mixed farming country.
I cannot understand why this link was not constructed in the first place. I do not know how the railway expected the line to be a paying proposition when 38 miles were left unfinished. It is for these reasons that I have brought up this matter many times before the committee on transport and communications. I have also brought it up with Mr. Gordon. He agreed with me. I asked him how in the world they could have expected this line to be a paying proposition. When one looks at the map and notices the geographical location of this line one will see that the north Saskatchewan river is a natural barrier to the south and that there is no connecting railway line. All three attempts to have a railway line constructed across that provincial boundary have failed. We cannot understand the reason for this.
I could point out at great length the reasons that this line should be built. For instance, the rail line to Fort McMurray was built to serve all the people of northern Canada, yet in Saskatchewan we have no way to get to it without going around through Edmonton. These are injustices which the people have

DEBATES	January 29, 1963
put up with for half a century. I hope this answers the hon. member's question.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) for his answer. I asked the question because the last time a bill in respect of the C.N.R. was put through the house it concerned a new line which involved an extension in the Kenora region of my constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. Before speaking at this time, I went through the debates and I discerned three conditions which must be met before the government would undertake to promote such a bill in the House of Commons.
The first provision was that the line should be capable of doing three things. First, it should provide a substantial increase in the revenue of the railway. More important, this was described in terms of a substantial profit. In this particular case, which is described in Hansard for April 25, 1966, page 4267, the profit was outlined as $1 million per year. Second, the line must have a specific purpose. In other words, there would have to be some form of development that was available to it before the government would undertake to raise the money for the railway line. In this case it was the development of a new open pit mine known as the Griffith mine, owned and controlled by the Steel Company of Canada, which would be producing one and a half million tons of iron pellets annually.
The third item was that there must be a guarantee of traffic. In other words, the mine must contract with the railway to provide the railway with a stated amount of tonnage per year in order to provide for the proper paying off of the cost of building the line. In that case the railway went so far as to demand that in the event the production of pellets did not come up to the anticipated levels the mine would pay the difference in revenue to the railway company. So the railway was properly protected and was guaranteed the profit and revenue necessary to operate the line. This seems to be the procedure that has been followed in other cases.
Canadian National Railways is working on another line at present, the 235-mile Alberta resources railway which it is building under a leasing agreement with the province of Alberta. I gather this is the line to which the hon. member referred when he mentioned Fort McMurray.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 29, 1968	COMMONS


John Mercer Reid: I am sorry, 1 apologize. In any event the agreement, which is outlined very briefly in the December 30, 1967, year end review by Mr. MacMillan, president of Canadian National Railways, indicates that the C.N.R. has gone into partnership with the government of Alberta in order to put itself into a position where it will not be subject to the risk of loss. It seems to be the intent of railways in Canada now not to go into areas where they do not have a guarantee of revenue or profit, or preferably both.
I sympathize with the hon. member in respect of the situation in which he is involved. The problem seems to be that the line in which he is interested is slated for the hatchet block because of the branch line abandonment program of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is only a 28-mile stretch of this line which is up for abandonment. The section involved is that which runs to St. Walburg. Only 38 miles would be required in order to make it a line which would run directly through from Edmonton to Prince Albert. This is the point I wish to bring out. I do not understand how the C.N.R., when it obtained the charter, hoped to have a paying line when they left this gap in between.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


John Mercer Reid: Of course, that focuses on the very problem itself. Obviously the C.N.R. must feel that the line going to St. Walburg is not a paying proposition and there is no sense in extending it. In my experience, the C.N.R. has been very anxious to extend its lines wherever a profit can be found.
One of the great misconceptions in Canada today is that because the government owns a railway or airline it will do what the government wishes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason is that although the government owns the line and has set up by statute certain regulations under which the board of directors must operate, there is nothing the government can do to threaten them. It would be my expectation that the government would get more co-operation from the C.P.R. than the C.N.R. for the simple reason that we have already done the worst we can possibly do to the C.N.R., whereas the C.P.R. is still in the position that we could take it over. This is one of the real difficulties we have in dealing with government owned corporations.
DEBATES	6099
Extension of Railway Facilities
Let me take this thought one step further. It came to our attention during the meetings of the broadcasting committee, that in respect of the government owned British Broadcasting Corporation, the postmaster general has the right to dictate what programs can or cannot be shown over that network. Yet never once has that authority been exercised. The reason is not that the authority should not have been exercised for cause but rather because the governors of the B.B.C. indicated to the postmaster general that in such a case they would attribute a certain proportion of cost to the postmaster general in their annual report. This treat seems to have been effective in offsetting any such threat of control.
I suggest there is one possible alternative open to the hon. member and his constituents. They could take their case to the Canadian Transport Commission, specifically to the railway committee. By my reading of the act, although it is a little hazy since we passed it about eight months ago, there is a rather involved procedure set forth to be followed by anyone who wants to prevent the abandonment of a line under the branch line abandonment program. I do not recall whether there is any procedure one follows in order to convince the board of the necessity to build a certain piece of line between points "x" and "y", as in the case now before us. This is a possibility the hon. member might look into, although I do not feel it holds too much hope.
In concluding his remarks the hon. member mentioned the Pine Point railway and indicated the C.N.R. had built this line as a matter of speculation. It is my information that the Pine Point line was built not as a matter of speculation but to reach a particular industrial development, namely the Pine Point mine developed by Cominco. I have also been told, although I am not sure how authoritative this information is and throw it out for what it is worth, that the railway was ready to advance with the construction of this line long before Cominco was ready to develop its ore deposits.
In any event the basic requirement was that Cominco find a market for the vast amounts of ore it would have to mine in order to meet its contractual obligations to the C.N.R. If you check Hansard for 1961, I believe, you will find the same guarantee I have described in respect of the Bruce Lake line. The line must be able to show a profit, must be constructed in a specific location where there is a need, and there must be a
6100	COMMONS
Extension of Railway Facilities traffic guarantee contract. Whatever traffic can be generated along the line in addition to the guarantee would amount, in a sense, to gravy for the C.N.R.
The real objection to extending the line in this case is the decision evidently reached by the C.N.R. that there is not sufficient profit to be made either by the line now operating or by the line as extended. How does one go about convincing the C.N.R., then the board and then parliament, which has not only to put up the money but guarantee the loss should the line be unprofitable? I suggest it would be very difficult to do this during a period of austerity when we are spending money on a number of other projects and have no money left to build 38 miles of line just for the fun of it. An historian once described the development of Canadian railroad progress in comparison with other countries by saying the Germans built lines to build an empire, the United States built lines to conquer a continent, but Canadians built lines for the hell of it. If anyone looks at our patchwork transportation lines he will see that this historian, Mr. Lower, I believe, was not very far off the mark.
Perhaps I should also bring to the hon. member's attention that it is possible for the C.N.R. to build that line without parliamentary authorization, although this involves a slow process. Under the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act the C.N.R. is authorized to build up to four miles per year without going to parliament for authorization. Such a line could be built out of the current revenue fund.


Mr. Fane:: It is 20 miles.


John Mercer Reid: My understanding is that they can build four miles, and my authority for saying that is the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), as recorded on page 4269 of Hansard for April 25, 1966, asked how many miles the C.N.R. could build per year, to which Mr. Pickersgill replied as follows:
-Canadian National Railways cannot build one inch more than four miles of railway without the prior approval of parliament.


Frank John William Fane: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he aware that the National Transportation Act passed last year allows Canadian National Railways to build a spur line of 20 miles without reference to parliament?


John Mercer Reid: I stand corrected and thank the hon. gentleman for that information. This just

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
goes to show how little reliance one can place on last year's debates and how quickly facts become obsolete.
In any case I can now conclude my remarks by saying that there is a ray of shining hope there for the hon. member for Meadow Lake provided he can convince the company to take advantage of this forward looking provision of the act and build 20 miles of railroad per year until they close the gap.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) for bringing this matter before the house and for his very able presentation. I assure you that I am very honoured to have been allowed to second this motion. I have debated the extension of this line on almost every occasion I have made a major speech in the house during the last ten years that I have been here. I was unable to work this subject into my speechs on issues such as the national flag and unification of the armed forces, but had I had a little more time at my disposal I am sure I could have found some way to do so.
After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) on this subject I wonder whether he is on the side of the people of Canada or on the side of Canadian National Railways, o (6:30 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is the same thing.


Frank John William Fane: It is the same thing, only
Canadian National Railways do some things that are awfully hard to understand. I must tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that in 1958, the year I came down here, five members of parliament from the government side made arrangements to go to Montreal and talk to the then president of Canadian National Railways about this very subject. These were the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu), the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) and myself, who are still here; and we were accompanied by the former member for Jas-per-Edson, Dr. Horner, and the former member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Winkler.
We did not get very far with the then president of Canadian National Railways. Even though the minister of transport had made arrangements and there was a firm understanding that we would be there on that day, the president was not going to see us. We had to practically threaten him in order to get an audience with that mighty person. We were only members of parliament, and
January 29, 1968

therefore just a bit of a nuisance. We finally got 17 minutes with him, and I must say that he was very, very difficult to deal with. Two of our number almost came to blows with him. The president of Canadian National Railways said to us, "What do you fellows think you are going to do? Are you coming down here to tell me how to run my railway?" Of course we took very violent exception to this. That is the sort of reception we received.
I must go a little more into the history of the building of this 38 or, as it used to be, 39.1 miles of railway from Heinsburg in Alberta to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. The cold weather over the last couple of weeks may have shrunk it to 38 miles, but anyway the difference is very, very little. I believe it was in 1927 that Canadian National Railways built a line from Edmonton to St. Paul, Alberta, which is not in my constituency. This was a branch line that went to Grand Centre, which is now the town just outside the gate of the Cold Lake air base.
It was all arranged that when this line was built it would go straight through from Edmonton to meet the C.N.R. spur at Frenchman Butte, but somehow or other the money ran out. All they needed was $3 million to finish those 39.1 miles of railway line. God only knows how much money it would cost at this time to finish that railway, but back in 1927,
I believe it was, it was only $3 million.
The right of way was started. The building up of the roadbed was started. I understand this is fairly easy country through which to build a road. I believe the line was not finished at that time because of lack of money. It is not an extension of a railway; it is just joining up the sides of a gap that was left. It goes through very profitable and prosperous farming country, and also services the salt mines at Lindbergh and Heinsburg. I believe that at Heinsburg there is supposed to be at present the most productive salt mine or salt well in Canada. I am told that it supplies Windsor Salt for all of Canada, whereas at one time the salt all came from Windsor, Ontario.
The short C.N.R. line from south of St. Walburg, at Spruce Lake, is in existence. It should be in operation, but because it is just blind line, for some reason or other Canadian National Railways want to close it. If it were joined up to this other line between Frenchman Butte and Heinsburg, the line could not help but pay its way. As it is, all the products of that area that can be served from Heinsburg through the St. Paul area, and from all

Extension of Railway Facilities the other prosperous area between Edmonton and Heinsburg, have to be hauled back through Edmonton, a matter of approximately 200 miles. The railway does not haul these products back at no cost. It seems very, very absurd to me that in all these years nothing has been done about the line. It is high time something was done, and something constructive, even if it is only constructing these 39.1 miles of railway from Heinsburg to Frenchman Butte.
I did not give the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) enough publicity and enough credit previously. I must now speak of that hon. member, who has not been able to arrive in Ottawa because no air traffic is landing in the city today. The hon. member is held up in Toronto and could not get to Ottawa. He has been extremely active in pushing this line, which goes through his constituency. While the part that should be built does not go through my constituency, it affects very greatly the prosperity of the people in certain portions of my constituency.
The hon. member for Athabasca has raised this question time and time again. I think perhaps he won an election on his efforts in trying to get this gap closed, but somehow or other we just have not been able to get anywhere with the problem and I think it is high time the matter was referred to the standing committee on transport and communications, as this motion requests. It should be discussed there and should receive a proper airing, where witnesses from the C.N.R. and from other interested parties in the province of Alberta can be called. I should like to see this happen at the very earliest moment, and I assure the house that I will try to provide details to the standing committee on transport and communications when this matter comes before that body.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I shall take my cue from the mover of the motion and terminate my remarks at this point. Again I will say that I hope this matter will be sent to the standing committee on transport and communications at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up much of the time of the house for the simple reason that I do not want to be placed in the unhappy position of helping to talk out a notice of motion which I support. However, I would like to comment on this notice of motion Decause the area involved in the completion
January 29, 1363

Extension of Railway Facilities of this line is one which I know very well. I recall that during the drought years on the prairies, when a good portion of the southern and central part of Saskatchewan was little or not more than a desert, people were going into that area in droves. As a result of the interest shown in the area I made it a point to go to that part of the country. I certainly support everything that the two previous speakers have said with respect to the country through which the proposed line would go. It is an area ideally suited for mixed farming, and during the period I was there it was only partially settled. I understand that since then the whole area has been developed by experienced people who moved there from other parts of the province, and it is now one of the best mixed farming areas in the whole of Saskatchewan.
I should like to comment on one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), when he drew a parallel between a new spur line to a mining area and a line such as this one which connects two points and goes through a developer area. As the hon. member has said, I cannot understand why such a line would not be completed, because obviously a line which starts at one point and ends nowhere would not be very effective. There should be a connecting link.
Perhaps we should give some second thought to the railway transportation in this country as a whole. Even though numerous bills have been presented with respect to the incorporation of pipe lines, it will be many years before we can do without railways, particularly in some areas in Canada. Our national railway has a responsibility to provide required service in areas where it is badly needed. Perhaps it is all right to approach this matter from the point of view of the profit which such service would bring, particularly in the case of a line going to a newly developing mining area. But this is another matter altogether, and the country as a whole has a responsibility to ensure that people in these areas get the service they require.
I support the notice of motion. I will conclude my remarks so as not to be placed in the embarassing position of talking it out. I hope it will receive the consideration it deserves.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) made a perfectly reasonable request, that the matter of the gap

between Heinsburg and Frenchman Butte be referred to the transport and communications committee. I am sure the hon. member will agree that it is necessary for some study of this subject to be made by members of the House of Commons to determine whether or not this proposal is adequate to provide satisfactory transportation of grain to the line going south between Edmonton and Lloyd-minster, and from that part of the area on the west side of the border but in Saskatchewan, to St. Walburg, because a change has taken place between what is now moved by highway and what a few years ago was considered almost exclusively railway traffic. I am not suggesting that this changes the situation, but there is a need to look at it in the light of the current and potential future development.
There are one or two remarks which I should like to make. I think the hon. member and the people whom he represents have become apprehensive about the situation which might develop because the line running west of St. Walburg is not protected by the order protecting certain lines throughout western Canada until 1975. I can fully understand their apprehension because it appears to me there will be some farmers in the area who will be 20 miles farther away from an elevator and from a market for their grain, if indeed the C.N.R. come to the Canadian Transport Commission and is successful in an application to abandon that line. I am sure the application for the abandonment of that portion of the railway line has already been made because I think applications have been made for all unprotected lines. But of course hon. members know that what is holding this up at the present time, and quite properly so, is the need for establishing a costing formula to determine how much revenue and how much cost can properly be attributed to any of these branch lines. I think it is only proper to hold up the abandonment of these unprotected lines until such time as members of the house and other interested parties across the country are able to agree on the factors that will go into the costing formula.
I will not take time today to explain this matter, but let me say that in my experience the figures advanced by the railway companies are quite often loaded in favour of their argument. In light of the fact that at present we do not have an accepted formula, I can understand the additional apprehension which exists. I do not know whether or not the farmers near Heinsburg in Alberta pay a higher rate for the transportation of their grain through Edmonton and then to the
January 29, 1968	COMMONS
lakes, or whether this is calculated as if there were a line going across. This is something else the committee should look into. For example, do these farmers pay more per hundredweight or per bushel than farmers closer to Edmonton, taking into consideration the fact there is a backhaul to the west and then a haul to the east again? If they do, and if that is unjustified, then of course I believe these farmers have the right to press, as they have been doing through the hon. member and his colleague the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), to have this line built, or an adjustment made in the freight rate which would take into account the capital cost of construction. There is always of course the matter of the volume of traffic today and the potential traffic that would be moving east from the area in the immediate future. This traffic might include such things as the rather extensive production of salt from two or three mines in the area, as well as the present and potential grain production for export from the area.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I suppose the decision is one for the management of the Canadian National, based to some extent on these considerations. I feel it is important also that the members of this house who represent the people in the area, as well as many people in other parts of the prairies, ought to have a thorough explanation from someone as to why it is uneconomic to construct this line. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) said he could not understand why this gap had been left in the first place. He could not understand why, over the last half century, no action had been taken to fill the gap. I am sure he has kept himself well informed of all the developments and the explanations that have been given by the railway company throughout these years. If he is still able to say he cannot understand why action has not been taken long since, then I believe the members of this house, through the committee on transport and communications, have an obligation to find those answers for him.
I do not know what it would cost to build that railway today. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) suggested that in 1927 the cost would have been a little over $3 million. I am sure the cost today would be two or three times that. This would be one of the factors which would have to be related to the amount of revenue and the volume of traffic that would result from the construction of the line.
DEBATES	6103
Extension of Railway Facilities
However, Mr. Speaker, this is not the only serious problem existing in connection with gaps in railway lines on the prairies. In my constituency there is an unprotected line from Hays to Suffield. If this line, about 30 miles in length were removed, a similar situation would be created to the one about which the hon. member has been complaining. This railway line, however, is in existence, as is the bridge over the South Saskatchewan river. I know that the figures advanced by the Canadian Pacific Railway respecting the number of carloadings originating on sidings along that line were not substantiated by the figures available through the Board of Transport Commissioners. Here, again, we need to have these facts substained before the committee. As I said earlier, we have been able to investigate and ascertain that the railways were advancing figures that were not accurate. Perhaps they have been doing the same thing in the case about which the hon. members complained affecting northeastern Alberta and northeastern Saskatchewan. I believe we should have available to give evidence before the committee, those experts who have studied the matter. Then we could give consideration to whether or not the capital required is reasonable in relation to the potential earnings.
Another point mentioned by the hon. member which impressed me was that it is not always a matter of dollars and cents so far as the railway is concerned. There is also the matter of providing an equal opportunity for the people throughout western Canada to operate their farms and have facilities available which would enable them to be competitive with other parts of the prairies. Even if there were a slight loss, therefore, I would favour the construction of this line. If a substantial loss were projected by the officials of the railway company appearing before the committee, then of course we would have to decide how great a loss would be justified in order to satisfy the requirements of the people in that area.
I know the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) said this was a rich farming area today and probably will continue to be. Indeed there is probably a lot more land up there that could be exploited for farm purposes. This would add to the potential volume of traffic. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close my remarks at this time. Good arguments have been advanced for the committee to hear this case. I would hope a situation like this could be corrected, provided the evidence
6104	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting brought before the committee appeared to justify the capital outlay "when compared with possible revenues.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Cariier-La-salle):: The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) may have excellent reasons for requesting that railway facilities be provided between Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan and Heinsburg, Alberta, and for having this important request referred to the standing committee on transport and communications. Perhaps the committee should study this problem in the same way as it studied the intention of the Canadian Pacific to remove its trans-Canada train called the Dominion. I believe that shortly the hon. member will have the opportunity of speaking to the new president of the Canadian National, when the railway officials appear before the committee. As I said before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time assigned to the consideration of private members business has now expired. The house will resume the business 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 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.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, before supper I was making a few remarks relative to the amendment now before the committee wherein I was expressing my surprise at the reasoning put forward by the minister. If the committee would bear with me I will repeat the essence of my remarks, which simply is this.
We have gone to the trouble of enshrining in clause 2 (c) of the bill the right to freedom of expression, subject to the applicable statutes and regulations. Bearing in mind that

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
there is considerable concern in the country about the right to receive programs that are broadcast and that there is an immense disparity in the reception of programs in different parts of the country, in view of the many new opportunities now afforded our citizens, through the means of cablevision and other systems, to receive all programs that are available, I thought it essential to include in the bill a right that goes hand in hand with freedom of expression, namely freedom to see and hear all broadcast programs that are available.
My present amendment before the committee has been watered down from the original version I first proposed last Tuesday night, in that it seeks to give Canadians the right to receive all programs. The minister has suggested that this would open the door to unlimited demands that all programs be made available. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not follow that interpretation of my amendment. If it were included in this paragraph of clause 2 it would in any event be subject to the relevant statutes and regulations. Under the terms of the bill the cablevision systems, rebroadcast systems-rediffusion systems, as they are called-are brought within the control of the regulatory body.
I do not think it can be suggested that the inclusion of the freedom to receive all programs could be given any wider or narrower application than freedom of expression, because both rights are subject to the relevant statutes and regulations. Therefore, to be consistent, if the minister suggests that the inclusion of the words "freedom to receive all programs" would open the door to all sorts of demands for rebroadcasting, amplifying or rediffusing all kinds of signals without regard to the law, then she must also say that the same construction can be placed on the words "freedom of expression", about which she should have the same fears.
There can be but one reason, Mr. Chairman, for the refusal of the minister to include in the bill an affirmation of the right of the people to receive all broadcasts, namely that the government is insisting on the right of censorship so it can refuse citizens of this country reception of certain programs.
This amendment is not placing upon the government the burden of making sure that everyone in Canada should have the right to receive all programs wherever they may originate. That seemed to be the purport of the minister's comments. My amendment cannot be read in that way. All I am contending
January 29. 1968

is that if the amendment is accepted, and this expression included in the bill, it would affirm that there is a right to receive all programs. I does not add one iota to the duty of the government or any regulatory body to ensure that those programs are made available; neither does it detract from their authority to establish the necessary rules and regulations governing the broadcasting or distribution of such programs.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister can show that my reasoning is unsound and that there is a difference in principle between the right to receive and freedom of expression, the government should accept this amendment. It should give equal weight to the other freedom that I suggest is a corollary of the freedom of expression, namely the right to hear and see all programs.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona with a great deal of interest. I also heard some of the debate last week. When the hon. member originally proposed his amendment the minister was not too happy with its wording and thought that the week end might produce a more satisfactory amendment. The minister has kindly given a further reply today which seemed to deal with some of the semantics involved here, as well as some of the difficulties created by granting an unlimited right to reception of programs.
I think the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona demand very close scrutiny by the committee, because in this bill we are talking about freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Hon. members opposite are Liberals in the true sense-certainly they are in the classical sense-and they should be most concerned about this clause in the bill. Those to my left who have talked so eloquently about freedom of speech and ensuring that clause 2 (d) does not prescribe any sort of censorship or direction should, I suggest, pay very close attention to this particular paragraph.
If the present wording of the clause were accepted by the committee we would be admitting not only that the licence to broadcast should be controlled but that the right to freedom of speech is ensured. Yet, in remote areas, the freedom of Canadians to hear or see programs carried by cable is severely restricted. That freedom is governed by this bill, since what is involved is not broadcasting but reception only.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Regardless of the generality of the principle of the freedom to hear and see via cable television, another criticism must be levelled at this clause. This bill is another one of those that try to define some sort of national policy and to bring together various regions of the country. I am thinking particularly of the Atlantic area. That area is not one of the great growth areas of Canada, it is not Ontario or Quebec and does not have all the competitive companies that are now engaged in the cable television field. It is not proposed to put many television stations into that area to cover it. I think one new station is to be installed by the C.E.C., and another by C.T.V. An application is under way with respect to a station at Moncton, but that station will extend an existing network. I do not think it will be an originating station.
In an area that has not much growth you do not find that operators will open lucrative television stations; nor will you find many originating stations in that area. This afternoon the minister talked about the necessity to have originating stations. Certainly I should like to know what she and her officials foresee will be the future of originating stations in the Atlantic area. Where you have no originating stations, or few of them, and where the country is slow growing, the only way that many Canadians in that part of the country can receive programs is through the medium of cable television. This bill will restrict the development of cable television, and bring it under the broadcasting legislation. I have been informed, nevertheless, that it is extremely difficult to get anyone in the department even to listen to a request from the east for cable television.
What good is it to have freedom of speech, which as Canadians we all ought to have, if we cannot see and hear programs that are carried by television or by cable television? This is almost the reverse side of the coin; it is almost a reverse type of censorship to which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred previously.
Members of the committee have often talked about freedom of speech. To a certain extent we may have abused that freedom here. When we talk about the freedom of speech we cannot divorce it from the freedom to hear-the right to hear and see all programs that are to be heard and seen. You cannot take away that right from those who live in parts of the country that do not have a good growth rate and that do not provide
6106	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting lucrative markets for originating stations, such as you have in Ontario and Quebec. I hope hon. members of the committee will find favour with and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, in such an important matter it is only a question of evolving the right phrase to fit the circumstances. Surely the law officers, the minister and her officials could find a way of bringing some protection in, under this clause. I think they should try to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in the language they use.
We talk about freedom of speech, and yet, when it comes to the potential development of cable television for the Atlantic provinces, the freedom to see and hear is to be denied to some of the people of the areas. We ought to pay some attention to the freedom to see and to hear.


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, as the last speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings has stated, clause 2(c) is the heart of the matter, particularly when you consider that the right of free speech is being trampled underfoot by those who favour the adoption of such a clause as 2(c).
I was speaking the other night on this clause when my time expired. At that time I referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, to which the Secretary of State herself had referred me. As I said, I have discussed it more than once with her. I wanted to advise the committee of the contents of that judgment because they are very, very vital to the question under discussion right now.
I pointed out that the province of British Columbia had endeavoured to gain control over the reception of radio signals, or television signals because, after gaining control over the reception operation, they would be able to regulate and tax such installations. The cablevision companies in Victoria and the lower mainland of British Columbia took the case to the British Columbia Supreme Court, asking for a ruling on the matter and maintaining that they were under federal jurisdiction. But, in giving the judgments that they did on the matter, the Supreme Court of British Columbia made reference to decisions of the Privy Council of Great Britain. These

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
decisions clearly establish that in the broadcasting world you cannot divide the transmitter from the receiver.
I should like to refer to some pages that I have before me. Bear in mind that the Secretary of State herself asked me to read the judgment, although I had read it several times before she referred me to it. I got an extra copy of it from the Supreme Court of Canada library.
I have here in my hand the judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as recorded in the Dominion Law Reports. The case is in re Public Utilities Commission and Victoria Cablevision Limited, et al. The learned judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia said in part:
The receiving of the programs by air is beyond doubt within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion. In He Regulation & Control of Radio Communication, A.-G. Que. v. A.-G. Can., (1932)
2 D.L.R. 81 (1932) A.C. 304, 39 C.R.C. 49, (1932)
1 W.W.R. 563,-
That is clear to the Secretary of State. She is a lawyer.
-Viscount Dunedin in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council stated at p. 85:
"Now does broadcasting fall within the excepted matters? Their Lordships are of opinion that it does, falling in (a) within both the words "telegraphs" and the general words "undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of the province"."
And at p. 86:
"Once it is conceded, as it must be, keeping in view the duties under the Convention, that the transmitting instrument must be so to speak under the control of the dominion, it follows in their Lordships' opinion that the receiving instrument must share its fate. Broadcasting as a system cannot exist without both a transmitter and a receiver. The receiver is indeed useless without a transmitter and can be reduced to a nonentity if the transmitter closes. The system cannot be divided into two parts, each independent of the other."
The receiver is indeed useless without a transmitter and can be reduced to a nonentity if the transmitter closes. The system cannot be divided into two parts, each independent of the other.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I have a second opinion to read to you also, Mr. Chairman, but this bears exactly on the point under discussion in clause 2(c) where the Canadian cabinet is endeavouring to split the right of free speech in two by making great mouth filling statements and high sounding platitudes about the fact that the right to freedom of expression is unquestioned. What good is the freedom of expression if people are not allowed to hear what is being said? Of all the idle, empty phrases I have seen in my life I have never seen the equal of this, that
January 29, 1968

the Department of Transport specifies only properly licensed stations.
What is this hogwash about saying that the C.A.T.V. signals must come from properly licensed stations? No C.A.T.V. station in Canada has ever asked for the right to pick up any other signal than that of a properly licensed station. Why make this foufaraw on this matter? It reminds me of the story of the divinity student who was relating his experiences in preaching on the subject of defective speaking. The student pointed out that sometimes he was not too sure of his statements. Ke said, "I am not too convinced in my own mind that what I am telling the congregation is correct doctrine. Sometimes I hesitate to speak, and lower my voice". But his professor said, to him "When you are on weak ground shout and stamp your feet; the weaker your argument, the louder you shout and the harder you stamp your feet."


Some hon. Members:: Louder, louder.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Why are we bringing in this argument about a properly licensed station? The C.A.T.V. never picks up anything else. Then they bring in the business about pirate stations. No C.A.T.V. station ever picks up a pirate station. In commenting on the minister's remarks about pirate stations, I should like to point out that she makes a backhanded reference to not wanting people to listen to unlicensed stations. If there were unlicensed stations on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts I am sure you would only need to tell the fine people of British Columbia or Nova Scotia that they should not listen to those stations, to build up the biggest audience a radio or television station ever had. I am sure the minister must have been reading about the wreck of a pirate ship in the maritimes in recent days. The minister states:
Technically it would be possible to set up a broadcast or a rebroadcast station and make its programs available to everyone. However, I do not think the B.B.G. should be required to license them simply because such stations are technically feasible.
Once again we are off on a tangent. We are talking about C.A.T.V. stations which are nothing but reception centres; there is no broadcasting involved. They make no use of the air waves. But, the minister says that technically it would be possible to set up a broadcast or a rebroadcast station, and she does not think the B.B.G. should be required to licence them simply because such stations are technically feasible. I could not agree more. I am
January 29, 1968

old enough to remember the four-month period back around 1930 when the people who were trying to get into the radio world were screaming that they should not be licensed, and that the Canadian government had no right to say that they could or could not go on the air. The only difficulty is that electronically there are only so many channels available for radio stations, and in order to prevent congestion on the air someone has to authorize certain stations to use certain channels. For a period of time the United States government, the Mexican government and the Canadian government agreed that they would not restrict applications for radio licences. There are certainly a few male members of this house-none of the women are old enough-who will recall the episode about 35 years ago when they allowed all those people who wanted to do so to go on the air, and you could not pick up a station and make intelligent use of it because of the interference from other stations, some with weak power and nearby, and others with strong power and a distance away.
Then they decided they must limit the number of people who could get into broadcasting. A certain number of the channels in the air were limited to Canada, a certain number were limited to Mexico and a fair number were limited to the United States. In the case of C.A.T.V. the number of channels on the air has nothing to do with their applications. They have no use of the airwaves; they simply pick up the program in the air and transmit it by wire to their subscribers. Again, in her speech of Friday afternoon, the minister said this:
Other considerations come into play, such as whether or not a C.A.T.V. or a rebroadcast station of some kind should be licensed in a given area.
What balderdash is involved here? Other considerations come into play, such as whether or not a C.A.T.V. or a rebroadcast station of some kind should be licensed in a given area. Well, what did they do in Wawa? There was already a radio station in there, and they put in a rebroadcasting station right on top of the station at Wawa.
What does the minister mean when she says that other considerations come into play, such as whether or not a C.A.T.V. or a rebroadcast station of some kind should be licensed? She is making out that they are incompatible one with the other. We have a concrete case in Wawa where the C.B.C. put in a rebroadcasting station on top of the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting C.A.T.V. They do not interfere with each other. One is a broadcasting unit making use of the airwaves, and the C.A.T.V. is a reception centre. They are not incompatible. There is no need to make a statement like that except to confuse the issue. Then we were told by the minister on Friday:
Sometimes the B.B.G. turns down such applications because they believe that a broadcasting station will at some time in the future be built in the area and this would be more in the interests of the community concerned.
Who says that it will be in the interests of the community concerned. If the people in Napanee, Prescott and Gananoque wish to have a C.A.T.V. installation so that they can pick up more programs than are available to them over the Kingston station, or the one or two Ottawa stations which are available there, that is the concern of the people in the area, and nobody else. Why should people be denied the right of freedom of choice in picking up television programs from other stations that are available to them while they are waiting for another station to be put into their area? What would you think of a situation in which a community wants a highway built so that they could bring in trucks and motorcars-perhaps an area in northern Ontario or northern Saskatchewan-if the government said that they would not give them a highway because it is quite possible that a railway may go in there in the future? The people would not stand for such an answer.
Now, however, the Secretary of State and the cabinet are trying to tell the people in Napanee, Gananoque and Prescott that they cannot look at any stations other than the presently available stations because in the future the C.B.C. might wish to put in another station. Mind you, they say they are not stopping their plans, that they are really just pulling them in. But how long will it be before they put a second station in that area? In the meantime they deny these people freedom of viewing,
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Then we have the Secretary of State saying this:
The difficulty that both justice and the B.B.G. inform me they see in this amendment is that the phrase it seeks to add to the bill means different things to different people.
There is an argument, I am telling you. We have not heard that more than a million times in the past. That is, we cannot do something because a phrase means different things to different people. What about the clause on national unity that we were discussing the
January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting other day and again this afternoon, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond pointed out that the phrase "national unity" is or could be an entirely different thing from the phrase "Canadian unity"? If you are going to argue about two nations in this country you are going to have national unity practised by two different peoples. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was endeavouring to have the clause read "Canadian unity" so there could be solidification of the situation.
We were told by the minister on Friday that she does not like the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona because justice and the B.B.G., forsooth, advise her that they seek to add a phrase which means different things to different people. That is why we have judges, because one firm says the law says this and another firm says the law says that, so obviously it means different things to different people. We have judges to decide. I should like to see any phrase in the English language that has only one meaning. We are given this puerile excuse that the B.B.G. and justice have informed the Secretary of State that the phrase seeks to add something which means different things to different people. Every phrase means different things to different people.
I regret having to say this, but in Hansard of Friday afternoon at page 6039, and carrying over to the next page, the Secretary of State is recorded as having said this:
These signals may come from a C.A.T.V. station-
I have said before, and I must repeat again, that the minister does not know what she is talking about, because a C.A.T.V. system does not issue a signal. The minister stands in her place here and endeavours to persuade this House of Commons to vote in a certain manner by making a statement that is absolutely incorrect. This is the same thing as trying to tell you that water runs uphill or that black is white. You would not swallow that. The minister does not know what she is talking about when she says these signals may come from a C.A.T.V. station. C.A.T.V. stations do not issue signals; but the statement has been made, and there you are.
This is on all fours with a situation that developed in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. We had expert witnesses there and one morning we had the expert of experts. The minister knows who he is, but I cannot place him now. He made the flat footed suggestion to the committee in answer to a question by me that

in the United States C.A.T.V. stations are licensed up to 50 subscribers. I never heard such a thing and I said to this expert of experts, "What are you talking about; where is this licensing authority?" He replied "yes; yes there is such an authority up to 50 subscribers." I have never heard of a C.A.T.V. station that works with as few as 50 subscribers.
During our noon adjournment I telephoned two authorities I know in western Canada and two people in Washington and I found there is no licensing authority in the United States of America for C.A.T.V. stations. We came back in the afternoon to an in camera session of that broadcasting committee. I thought that the expert of experts who had made this false statement in the morning would be there in the afternoon. The in camera session carried right on and finished its work about half past three. At that point a gentleman came over to me, also from the Department of the Secretary of State and said to me: "I want to tell you, sir, that there is no licensing authority in the United States. That was a mistake made this morning." Well, I might state that in the parlance of the street I really chewed his head off.
At that time I said to him: "What in the name of heaven do you mean by telling me, after the committee has brought in its report and has met in camera, that information given to us this morning is false information? Why do you tell me after the committee has risen that it is false?" He said to me he was not the man who made the statement in the morning. I said: "Oh, yes, everybody in the civil service who is responsible is always away on something much more important."
Here we have the minister herself standing up and stating that these signals may come from a C.A.T.V. station. This is a false statement because it is impossible; but it is given to you in evidence in order to persuade you to take some course of action. I say to you that in the committee on broadcasting we were given false information which was corrected after the committee rose. If we are going to make decisions on that kind of information we should reconsider the bill very carefully, clause by clause and sentence by sentence.
Then again on Friday afternoon the minister said:
There is no quarrel with the proposition that operators who are licensed and lawfully transmitting signals should be able to broadcast to all.
January 29, 1968

We are not even talking about that, and no one is quarrelling with it. We are talking about the right of people to receive signals that have been properly and lawfully authorized. Why bring in this line of hokum? There is no quarrel with the proposition that operators who are licensed and lawfully transmitting signals should be able to broadcast to everyone; but those are broadcasters. This phrase, the right to freedom of expression-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has now expired. Is the committee ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I found the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) very interesting, and I think that if someone intervenes between his two speeches, he will perhaps be able to continue his observations.
That is why I think I should say that freedom of expression implies also, as the hon. member for York-Humber pointed out so ably, freedom for each individual to hear the programs he wants.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Canadian Policy on Broadcasting be permitted to look at because a second television station might be opened in the future? How ridiculous can the government's stand be on a matter of this nature?
The Secretary of State went on to say:
They cannot receive all these signals unless something brings them to their sets. The C.A.T.V. operator might reply by saying:	"I have six
stations I want to transmit. The regulations say I cannot. I must transmit all 12, because parliament says everyone has a right to receive everything that is available."
Parliament should say that everyone has the right to receive everything that is available. As I said before, I do not pick up four television programs at one time on my home set. They are all available to me, but I do not pick them up simultaneously. I pick them up individually whenever I may wish to do so. For the Secretary of State to use the argument to a C.A.T.V. operator that he must transmit all 12 signals because parliament says everyone has the right to receive everything that is available is childish in the extreme. Why should a Canadian be limited only to the local T.V. station when more channels are available to him through an installation such as C.A.T.V. which is legal and proper in every way and which we have licensed in many parts of Canada?
I have already referred to the fact that it is stated in the B.B.G. report for the year ended March 31, 1967 that the Department of Transport has made 91 informal references to them on applications for C.A.T.V. licences. In making these references to the B.B.G. they said that 84 of the 91 applications would not compete with the local broadcaster. I have already asked why the cabinet is so solicitous of the local broadcaster. Why does he require protection from competition of the daily newspapers which sell advertising in the area? The newspapers are not protected against the T.V. operator, yet the T.V. operator is to be protected by the government against any competition which might make his economic life a little hard. The report states that C.A.T.V. must not be licensed because it can hurt the economic life of the local T.V. station.
I have in my hand the annual reports of the B.B.G. for the year ending March 31, 1963/64, 1964/65 and 1965/66. I have placed on the order paper, and it will appear in Wednesday's issue, a request to the Secretary of State to advise us what applications have been turned down for C.A.T.V. licences in
these three years, because we are told the following in the report ended March 31, 1965:
In the fiscal year ended March 51, 1965, the board examined 59 such applications and found that 46 of them, in its judgment, would not make the operation of existing T.V. stations uneconomical or inhibit the provision of alternate service.
This means that in that year 13 applications were turned down. I have asked to be advised which 13 areas were denied the privilege of freedom of speech, the right to look at whatever stations they could bring on a C.A.T.V. application by a C.A.T.V. installation, and the reasons for those refusals.
As I pointed out, in the year ended March 31, 1967 seven applications were turned down, two of which were in Pembroke, and since then the B.B.G. has informally advised the Minister of Transport to grant a licence to a third applicant. Also, since March 31, 1967, the B.B.G. said, an application for a C.A.T.V. licence in Clermont, Quebec was turned down; but now that it is after April 1, All Fool's Day, they are in favour of granting a licence to Clermont, Quebec, and it has been granted. Why is it that the B.B.G. has reversed its decisions that were evidently made on proper grounds, as set forth in their learned opinions, as each application is received and dealt with?
In the year ended March 31, 1966, the
B.	B.G. stated that the minister referred 82
C.	A.T.V. applications to the board. The number included applications for new licences, extensions of existing systems, and changes in the channels carried. It stated further:
The board found that 72 of them, in its judgment, would not make the operation of existing T.V. stations uneconomical or inhibit the provision of alternative service.
In the year ended March 31, 1966, the board turned down 10 applications. In the year ended March 31, 1965 they turned down 13 applications, and in the year ended March 31, 1967 they turned down seven applications, making a total of 30. I think the public of Canada and parliament are entitled to know which 30 areas have been deprived of the privilege of C.A.T.V. installations. It would also be interesting to know what applications are being considered by the B.B.G. at present.
I regret the hon. member for Kamloops is not here because I showed him a letter which I received from a man who pointed out that in Vancouver they have seven channels from which they can select the one they want to see, but when he and his wife go to visit a daughter and son-in-law in Kamloops there is

January 29, 1968

only one program available to them, namely the local T.V. station in Kamloops. Yet applications have been made for a C.A.T.V. installation in Kamloops and they are in the hands of the Minister of Transport. I am advised by the hon. member for Kamloops that there is a freeze on until parliament deals with the Broadcasting Act now before us. Why should the people in Vancouver be given such freedom of choice when it comes to television programs while the people in Kamloops are told to look at one local station and nothing else? They are told what is good for them. The people in Vancouver can do what they like; there are too many of them to be browbeaten, but there is a small group in Kamloops which will be told what to look at.
The other evening the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox told us of another application which has been turned down from a Mr. Dawson who applied for a C.A.T.V. licence in Napanee. I happen to know of two other applications in the Kingston area which have been turned down. Why does the B.B.G. interfere with the right of the people to pick up the programs they might wish, over the C.A.T.V. installation, which will not cost the Canadian taxpayers a cent, for which subscribers to the C.A.T.V. service have to pay in monthly instalments, and for which they are willing to pay as is obvious from the tremendous number of subscribers which has built up over the years?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I should now like to revert to the comments made by the Secretary of State in explaining why she could not accept the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. Let me refer again to the comments made by the minister on Friday. She said she was told by Justice and the Board of Broadcast Governors that the ramifications of the suggested amendment were too wide and she was advised not to accept the amendment. We now find ourselves in the beautiful position where, in 1962, we screamed because the administration headed by Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker would not produce an opinion from the Department of Justice on the question of import and export taxes and the rebates that were made on tariff collections. We were told then that the government never produces these confidential, highly secret and very learned opinions that are exchanged between the Department of Justice and other divisions of the federal cabinet. So we screamed to the high heavens that this was not right. We were told
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting that the cabinet was accepting the advice and that we, in the opposition, had to accept the opinion of the law officers of the crown, because the law officers of the crown never make a mistake.
We, in the opposition, and the Secretary of State was one of them, objected to this high handed action on the part of the cabinet in telling the elected representatives of the people that what they wanted to see was being withheld from their eyes. Now the Secretary of State, who five years ago shrilled and trilled with the rest of us against the high handed action of the Diefenbaker cabinet, stands in her place and says she is told that the ramifications of the amendment are too wide and she is advised not to accept it. In view of the fact that the Diefenbaker cabinet never did produce the opinion of the law officers of the crown in 1962-and I hope the hon. lady does not forget that we turned out the Diefenbaker government-I am not going to ask for the production of the document today. I do not want to see the lady get up and ape the Diefenbaker cabinet by stating, "We cannot produce an opinion that is so anxiously demanded." She might have demanded such an opinion in 1962, and she was right then. If I ask for a copy of the opinion in 1968, she will tell me I am wrong. I do not like that kind of thinking. If you are right in 1962, then you are right in 1968. You cannot be right in 1962 and wrong in 1968 on the same issue. I believe there are reasonable people in this house who will agree with me on that point.
The hon. member for Peace River speaking on Friday afternoon made a very interesting comment to the Secretary of State when he said, as reported on page 6041 of Hansard:
I have not intervened in this discussion so far, but I believe it would be a serious error of judgment if we were to leave the subject in the absence of an indication that there is no restriction on the right to receive programs.
This clause has to be amended. The right of freedom of speech is too important to the people of Canada for a so-called Liberal government to allow a provision that the broadcaster's right to express himself is unquestioned to become the law of the land. Someone has to stand up for the individual viewer who wants to receive the programs that are being broadcast. There is no virtue in allowing people to broadcast programs and refusing the people of the nation the right to pick up those programs if they so desire. I ask the committee to support the amendment moved
6116	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona. We dare not deny the right of freedom of speech to the people of this country unless we are going to admit we no longer have a democratic form of government.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Nugent) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 44.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the subclause carry?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: As I indicated earlier to the minister, if the amendment was still too sweeping I would have another to suggest. The argument used by the minister against the amendment the other day was to the effect that the words "by any means whatever" made it too wide. This amendment has just been defeated. The minister's entire argument was based on the fact that the amendment referred to "all programs available". The reasoning of the minister and her advisers apparently was based on the premise that the right to receive was going to complicate the situation to such an extent that the obligation of the government to make programs available would be involved. Since this was the case, I felt that we should then move an amendment which would preserve the right or freedom to receive without running into the dangers the minister envisaged. I will just have to take it for granted that the hon. members who voted against the amendment listened to the minister's reasons and therefore rejected the amendment on that ground.
I shall therefore present to the committee an amendment which is free of that criticism and which I hope the minister and her supporters will be able to accept. The amendment I propose reads as follows:
Clause 2. subclause (c) of Bill C-163 is amended by inserting between the words "expression" and "subject" in line 19 thereof the following: "and the right of persons to receive programs".
The clause as amended would then read:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression and the right of persons to receive programs, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the argument in support of the right to receive programs is simply the argument in support of the freedom of speech. It is just useless to enshrine within an act such as the Broadcasting Act that there is a right to freedom of expression

DEBATES	January 29, 1968
unless, along with that, is the simple right to see and to hear what has been expressed. The amendment I have moved simply provides for the right to receive what has been broadcast or what has been expressed. This right is not a blanket right but is subject to the rules and regulations. I must confess that I am very surprised at the attitude shown by the minister's advisers in this regard, s (9:20 p.m.)
It is argued that there is a great difference today between the programs available in different parts of the country. Cablevision is available to some citizens and not others. We have yet to feel the benefit of satellite television which the government will have to regulate with a great deal of flexibility. We have not yet begun to handle problems created by educational television on high frequency channels.
The minister has expressed the present feeling of her advisers, which seems to be that because we have dared express the view in the amendment that Canadians should be given the right to freedom of reception, it must be rejected on the ground that it would open the door to additional difficulties. If this is the case, then I feel that her advisers will be unable to make the changes that are required in our programming patterns and our broadcasting patterns to meet availability of reception through the different media in operation.
Surely I am not unjustified in suggesting that some areas of Canada receive more programs than others. For example, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina have one or perhaps two channels and no cablevision. In Vancouver and Toronto a multiplicity of channels is available and the government seems disposed to continue this situation.
Surely it is only fair to suggest that the reason one group of Canadians has a choice of programs and another does not is because the government wants to keep its thumb on those who cannot escape government supervision. In a nutshell, the government is saying that although it cannot restrict reception of those Canadians who are close enough to the border to receive programs from the United States, it can restrict reception of those who subscribe to cablevision because it has the power to license such systems.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, why the minister will not accept this amendment. Does she want to control reception of programs because, in order to justify government expenditure on broadcasting, there must
January 29, 1968

be a guaranteed audience? Is it because these programs are not up to standard and that this captive audience would not watch them if other programs were made available? If the minister is not going to accept this amendment I trust she will advance further reasons for our not having satisfied the sensibilities of her advisers in this regard.
The reason I have moved this amendment to this particular paragraph of the clause and not to another clause, as suggested by the minister, is because this paragraph deals with the freedom of expression. A corollary of freedom of expression, I submit, is the freedom to see and hear programs. Therefore the amendment properly belongs to this paragraph.
Second, we must not forget that freedom of expression is limited by the responsibility of the government to make regulations which ensure that our airwaves are properly and regularly used. My amendment similarly would be subject to the relevant statutes and regulations.
I acknowledge the considerable interest of the members of the New Democratic party in this matter, their having voted with the minister on the last amendment. I hope this was because they were persuaded by the arguments of the minister that the amendment would create such demand for television channels, for cablevision, and so on, that the power to regulate in proper manner would be inhibited.
However, Mr. Chairman, even those who have such faith in regulation cannot find any such objection to the present amendment, which merely asks for freedom to receive programs along with the freedom of expression. I have not suggested reception of all programs broadcast "by any means whatsoever". There can be no implication here of Pressuring the government to meet any further demand. Neither would my amendment further inhibit the regulatory authority in any way.
Any suggestion that Canadians should be deprived of freedom to receive programs on the ground that some civil servant advisers are afraid of this right, or that it would cause more trouble in drafting regulations is, I submit, unacceptable. If that is their attitude, what is to prevent them from taking the next logical step? Having considered an application for a licence the authorities could tell the applicant that, although his application may not infringe the regulations, at some time in 27053-386J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the future they might want to draw up further regulations which might be jeopardized were the application granted. Surely if the government believes in freedom of speech the minister has the duty to see that somebody takes a stand somewhere.
All my amendment does is to continue the concept of freedom of speech by adding the freedom to receive what is expressed. There is nothing in my amendment to create difficulty and I trust the minister will accept it in the interest of free speech in this country.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, before you put the amendment may I say that I do not think my hon. friend really intended to make an attack on the civil service. Our civil servants are paid to give expert advice to members of the house who, obviously, are not experts themselves. They have the responsibility to advise those in the executive branch of the house how to do what the government has decided to do. I know the hon. member is very generous and does not mean to impute some improper motive to civil servants who are doing their proper job.
I am sorry that the hon. member talked to such length but it seemed, since he was entering such high flights of rhetoric, that it would be a pity to interrupt him to say that I was prepared to accept his amendment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: To say what?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The amendment is accepted?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Does the Secretary of State say she is prepared to accept the amendment?


An hon. Member:: That's what she said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Nugent) agreed to.
Clause 2 (c) as amended agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to consideration of clause 2 (h).


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South wishes to move an amendment here. Because of today's weather he could not get from Winnipeg to Toronto and could not come here. I am therefore speaking on his behalf. I understand that the minister is agreeable to standing this subclause until tomorrow.
January 29, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before this clause is allowed to stand, would the hon. Secretary of State give us a few explanations? I do not find the clause very clear, and I would ask her to give us a few explanations.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, the whole thing is stood. I think the debate should be stood at the same time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the subclause stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now consider clause 2(i), Shall clause 2(i) carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, referring to clause 2(i) that is before us now and which reads:
___facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
I can only ask this: Is there never going to be a halt at all on the amount of money that is to be spent in the broadcasting world, or do we simply keep on going and going, throwing money into the hopper for radio and television year after year, in ever increasing amounts?
Education, as we know and admit, is a provincial matter. While I regret that that is so-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -I have to admit it and live with it. But when we talk about spending money for increasing the facilities for education broadcasts, I mean it when I say that we are talking about the past and not about the future.
I cannot see spending money on educational broadcasting, on educational programs, and for a very self-evident reason. All the classes in certain grades are following a curriculum that is laid down generally by the provincial department of education. The end result is that the teachers in the various classes throughout the large and small municipalities will bring some children to the same examination point, let us say, in the month of June, so that they will all be equally taught to answer the questions that are put to them in the final examinations. But surely no one in

this house is going to say that all the children, day by day and week by week throughout the school year, are making the same progress and are discussing the same chapters in the prescribed books? We know for a fact that an epidemic may close a certain school for a week or so, and throw its students behind the other students in the same municipality and in the same grades.
I have always got a kick out of two girls who went to college and took the course in religious knowledge. I was a Presbyterian and enrolled in a Methodist institution. At least, it was Methodist when I was enrolled-Victoria University. They had a course in religious knowledge. Since there is nothing in religious knowledge that a Methodist can teach a Presbyterian, I never took it. But I did know of two girls who were taking religious knowledge and they had different professors, because of the schedule that had been handed to them.
One day one girl, walking across Queen's Park, said to the other, "How are you doing in religious knowledge?" The other girl replied, "We're doing very well. We're in the midst of original sin." The other girl said to her, "That's nothing, in the class I'm in we're past redemption."
I only tell you the story to show you that if two classes-


An hon. Member:: Whom are you speaking about?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am speaking of two girls, my friend.


An hon. Member:: In original sin and past redemption?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I will admit I am in original sin where I am standing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I gave you that little story to show that classes do not maintain the same speed. There are other reasons for that. Teachers vary in their ability to impart knowledge, and classes vary in their ability to receive the knowledge and to absorb it properly.
I have the great good fortune of having resided in Toronto for the past 50 years, and during the last several years in my work with the Toronto Star-


An hon. Member:: Good fortune or
misfortune?
January 29, 1968


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -I had the opportunity of providing the school systems of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough in particular, and some of the schools in the city of Toronto, with educational film. The use of educational film in the school systems of Canada is growing by leaps and bounds. The hon. member for Scarborough is an ex chairman of the board of education for the borough of North York.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have to tell you that the educational film programs of the borough of North York, the borough of Scarborough and the borough of Etobicoke are without peer in the Dominion of Canada, and in my opinion they are certainly in the forefront of educational film in North America.
Each film is available to a classroom teacher. A great many of the films come from the National Film Board. They are not made available free of charge to the school boards, and in many, many cases the school boards accept contributions of educational film from firms that are willing to provide this assistance to the educational film division of the borough.
The interesting thing to me is that the Toronto Star used to supply-and it may to this day, for all I know-used to supply a couple of thousand feet of educational film every month to the educational film division of Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.
The point I want to impress on members of the committee is this. The teachers used to tell each other that they valued the film highly. It was placed in the library of the local borough governing the school system, and when the teachers wanted it they simply requisitioned the film, or sent for it. It was run off over the school projector and the teacher instructed the class in the meaning of the pictures and the idea behind the entire film.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The fact that these films are placed in a central library and sent out to the individual schools as requested, shows that the individual classes are not studying the same subject at the same time throughout the school year. Are we going to be asked to invest millions of dollars in an educational broadcasting system that may very well prove unworkable? What hope is there of maintaining every grade 7 class in Ontario at the same speed of comprehension on the part of the children, and at
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the same speed of instruction on the part of the teachers, throughout the year?
Individual classrooms can receive a benefit from educational film made available to them as their individual teachers request, but they will not receive the same advantage from educational film being shown to them over the airwaves of the nation. I believe this fact is self-evident.
The Secretary of State can state that clause 2 is only declaratory. I have been trying to tell the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Lapointe that I do not mind voting for a declaratory clause which deals with English and French because that declaratory clause does not say that we are going to spend now the money involved. But why should we have a declaratory statement that facilities should be provided for educational television within the Canadian broadcasting system? By having this clause we are making a half promise that we will spend millions of dollars in the future. I say that we do not need to make such a declaration. We do not need to make a commitment at the present time.
Educational matters are being adequately and very completely covered by the national film board series of films, and by the educational films available through provincial departments of education and through tourist bureaus. British Columbia will send into Ontario beautiful films which show the geographic and commercial features of British Columbia and British Columbia schools can get similar films from the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. The beauty of this arrangement is that teachers are able to use those films in keeping with the progress of their classes.
If you bring in educational television on the national broadcasting system it is going to be like the bed of Procrustes. Every teacher is going to know, no matter whether his class is ready to receive it or not, that the eleventh lecture on the history of Canada will be shown on next Thursday morning. In an individual class lectures Nos. 8, 9 and 10 may have been delayed. Why should a child who has only had lectures Nos. 1 to 7 suddenly be exposed to lecture No. 11 simply because a national television education system says that will be the lecture to be shown at eleven o'clock the following Thursday morning?
I am speaking from knowledge of the system in the borough of York North, the borough of Scarborough and the borough of
January 29. 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Etobicoke which are in the forefront of matters pertaining to educational film. Teachers of classes in those boroughs can use educational films when they want to, and not when some broadcaster on the air feels impelled to lecture the children of a certain geographical division on a certain topic. I say this clause is unnecessary and should not be in a declaratory part of the bill, where it has no teeth.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, clause 2(i) reads as follows:
.-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting;
Now, through a bill on broadcasting, the federal government is interfering in a field which, in accordance with the British North America Act, comes exclusively under the provincial jurisdiction. We know that the educational field comes under the provinces. I will be told that it deals with the equipment of educational broadcasting.
Mr. Chairman, for a hundred years, we have been aware of precedents in other fields. The federal government uses a loophole to intrude into a field which does not come under its jurisdiction and once its position is established, it seeks to monopolize and take everything.
For years, for one hundred years in fact, Quebec and other provinces have consistently refused to allow the federal government to interfere in the field of education.
Today, by the roundabout way of legislation on broadcasting, the hon. Secretary of State is trying to open a small side window into the wall, in order that the federal government may penetrate in a field whose jurisdiction is exclusively provincial.
One might say that one intended only to provide to the Canadian broadcasting system educational broadcasting facilities. However, Mr. Chairman, Quebec is already working in that direction. Educational broadcasting is already in existence. In the area of Saguenay-Lake St. John, every day, morning and evening, there are educational programs entitled "Quebec-television scolaire", produced by the Quebec government.
The Quebec government already has its own organization in the field of educational programs. It already has its own equipment for educational television and two television stations are already broadcasting, on a trial basis, educational programs. The federal government now wants to venture into that field,

when a provincial government has actually spent money to buy such equipment, which means that the federal government would also like to buy more equipment for exactly the same purpose, thus duplicating our funds and taxes.
In the province of Quebec-and maybe in the others also, I am not quite sure, the matter is perhaps under consideration-such equipment has already been purchased, a committee has been formed to operate it, films have been produced and are broadcast every day, morning and night, on the screens by private television stations in the Sague-nay-Lake St. John area.
The two stations of our area, those of Chicoutimi and Jonquiere, broadcast these films every morning and every night and give courses to those wishing to continue their 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th grades.
It has already started. The expenditures have been made. The equipment has been purchased. Why pay a second time and when it is already there and, furthermore, this is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. What moves the Secretary of State to spend money to buy a second time what has already been purchased?
Are we also going to train another crew to use this equipment? Mr. Chairman, there is already a crew. It exists, it is there, more advanced than the embryo stage, because it has already started to prove its worth, if we are to judge by what we can see on the television screens.
If it exists, why this duplication? I was told-and I made an effort to see them this morning, also in Ottawa-about educational films prepared by the Ontario department of education which are fine indeed. Naturally, education falls within provincial jurisdiction, and Ontario attends to it. There could be an exchange of French language films between Quebec and Ontario, even though the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) shakes his head. Indeed, English language films could be exchanged by the departments of education of British Columbia, Newfoundland and Ontario.
It is already the case, it has already been paid for once, in the form of taxes. Our taxes paid to the Quebec government have already been used to buy all that, but they would want the Quebec citizens to pay a second time for some equipment which would be placed in another building, which would come under the Ottawa government, another equipment exactly the same as the Quebec equipment, being a duplication thereof.
January 29, 1968

Why, Mr. Chairman? I admit that sometimes-and it is an argument which has been already put forward-the federal government has interfered in certain fields, precisely due to the lack of action by the provincial governments.
When the house passed the hospital insurance scheme, it was said that the provinces had taken no action and that the citizens who could not afford it still had the right to be hospitalized. It was true, the provinces had taken no action.
However, in this case, the provinces have already taken some action. The equipment has already been bought, already paid for and some crews have already been given the responsibility to use that equipment. Professors have already been hired; they have already prepared lectures and the films produced are shown on television. A series of lectures has already started since the beginning of January, I think. They have been shown by the Jonquiere and Chicoutimi television stations. The equipment purchased was tested successfully.
If it has already been bought, the federal government can no longer say that the provinces are taking no action. This argument no longer applies, for Quebec already owns this equipment. So it would be a needless expenditure on the part of the federal government, since it has already been done, and there would be a duplication of taxes for Canadians.
I cannot see why the hon. Secretary of State would want to do that, since the field of education is a provincial matter.
I will be told that the provinces are the ones which will decide how to use the facilities and which will set up their own courses.
I cannot imagine the Quebec government, which is already fully equipped, turning to the C.B.C. and telling them: You have the facilities, we will use them. I cannot imagine the Quebec government wanting to borrow the facilities of the federal government when Quebec already fully controls facilities which a group of competent professors is already using, since they have more experience in that field than the officials of the federal government.
In my opinion, that clause is unnecessary, it is one more infringement of the Canadian constitution, in short it violates the Canadian constitution.
We will be told that nothing will be imposed on us in the field of education. I

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting know the argument of the Secretary of State, but provinces have already complete and very adequate equipment. Why then put at the disposal of a province equipment which has already been purchased and paid for? It is a good argument since Quebec already has such equipment to produce its own school films. The minister can no longer put forward the pretext that it is to purchase equipment which she will make available to provinces, because provinces already have it. Such a reason can no longer be put forward.
What are they trying to hide by introducing such a clause? Would the hon. Secretary of State like the Canadian broadcasting system to have an educational network which would produce its own films? Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this clause is useless both from the constitutional and from the practical point of view. It would perhaps have been useful a year and a half or two years ago, when the provinces had taken no initiative in this field, but not now, when the provinces have taken steps in this respect, bought facilities and acquired experience. In fact, in the province of Quebec, courses are already being telecast, and the hon. members for Roberval and Chicoutimi (Messrs. Gauthier and Langlois) will no doubt bear testimony to this, since they must have seen these courses produced by the province of Quebec, using Quebec equipment and with the help of a team of Quebec professors. Moreover, education falls within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
In my opinion, to spend again some taxpayers' money to purchase equipment already available would be duplication of public funds and this is unacceptable. A second series of programs is perhaps planned.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
6122	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Barry Mather: 
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has undertaken to provide access to Sea island to service the new
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.!
DEBATES	January 29, 1968
international airport being built by the Department of Transport for Vancouver and the lower British Columbia mainland. The terms and conditions under which the federal government accepted this responsibility were that user charges would be sufficient to recover the capital cost of the facility over a reasonable amortization period. It is not now and never has been the responsibility of the Department of Transport to provide vehicular access to and from crown owned airports.
The government has been of the opinion that it could not logically be expected to provide roadways to airports on a non-toll basis. It must be readily apparent that the capital cost of undertaking such a policy on a national scale would be enormous, especially in major centres such as Montreal and Toronto.
However, in Vancouver we have a rather unique situation. The airport is located on an island that is not now adequately serviced by crossings to meet the demand of the existing airport. It was also made apparent by local municipal authorities that they were not in any position to finance the construction of facilities required to meet existing and future traffic demands expected to be generated by the opening of the new international air terminal later this year.
For these reasons the federal government agreed to construct the necessary facilities to provide adequate access to the new airport on the understanding that tolls, sufficient to recover the capital cost of the facilities over a reasonable number of years, would be levied on the users.
I want to make it quite clear on behalf of the government that the government on the other hand does not intend to levy these tolls against residents of Sea island who have a traditional right of free access to the island. Special arrangements will be made to ensure that anyone who is now resident on the island will not face toll charges to get to and from his residence and place of work.



GRAIN-WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED DELIVERY QUOTAS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is absent. However, I understand his duties will keep him away until the middle of February. Under the circumstances I feel I must raise the complaint I originally made on December 18 and 19 in the hope that somebody else will answer on his behalf.
January 29, 1968


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce would like me to express his regrets at not being able to be here this evening to listen to the hon. member's very effective submission. As he knows, the minister is away in Europe and Asia on a selling mission, and I am sure we all wish him well. We certainly hope he will be able to sell more wheat during his mission there.
The hon. member for Mackenzie has asked whether there will be a transfer of funds to the Canadian Wheat Board as a result of the recent sale of wheat to China. Perhaps I should repeat the government's guarantee to western grain producers as announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the House of Commons on September 27, as recorded at page 2558 of Hansard:
Pending ratification and only until that date, the government is prepared to make up the difference between the agreed schedule of Geneva minimum prices, related to approximately $1,951 basis
[Mr. Korchinski.)
DEBATES	January 29, 1968
No. 1 Northern in store at the Lakehead, and any wheat sold by the Canadian Wheat Board below this level during the period August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1968.
This means that on any and each sale made by the Canadian Wheat Board between August 1, 1967 and June 30, 1968, at prices under the agreed international grains arrangement minimums, the government will make up the difference to the board. This action was intended to enable the board to price competitively without undermining the per bushel return to producers.
Hon. members are aware that for commercial reasons it has been the long standing practice on the part of the government not to divulge the selling price of wheat in individual markets. I cannot therefore comment on any individual sale by Canada in relation to the minimum prices set out in the new international grain agreement. I can only repeat that the government will reimburse the wheat board for each sale negotiated at a price level under the I.G.A. minimums. The government will shortly be tabling an estimate in the house for this purpose.



POWER-BRITISH COLUMBIA-LOCATION OF NEUTRON GENERATOR

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that a scientist, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will reply to me when I complete my brief remarks. I may say that I represent a riding which includes several research groups interested in scientific achievements. In these groups we find the very large and competent group of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, the research group in Notre Dame University at Nelson, the research group of Selkirk College at Castlegar, and the group concerned with forest research in the Celgar Corporation in the Castlegar district.
All these groups have followed very closely the developments in the research industry, in government and in universities, and they have followed very closely the development of the intense neutron generator. In this connection I want to quote very briefly from Science Forum, to indicate the importance of this astounding development. I am quoting from an article entitled, "I.N.G.: A vehicle to new frontiers" by L. G. Elliott, W. Bennett
January 29, 1968	COMMONS
Lewis and A. G. Ward, men well known in this field:
Possibly the most contentious issue in Canadian science today is the proposal by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to build the intense neutron generator. Dispute has arisen primarily because of its high cost (between $150 and $200 million capital cost plus $20 million a year operating cost) and the fear that it will sap government funds away from other areas of science. But there are other issues besides this question of national priorities. Some scientists feel that there has been insufficient discussion of the project, and even that debate has been discouraged. The deans of Canada's engineering schools have expressed concern about I.N.G., but the Science Council of Canada has given its provisional approval. Cabinet approval still is needed before the project can go ahead.
In order to promote discussion of this important issue, Science Forum has sought opinions on both the pros and cons of I.N.G. from its principal proponents and other scientists knowledgeable in several areas-engineering and materials science, nuclear physics and high energy physics. These are presented in this and the following articles. Other aspects are dealt with in the comment section.
The article is a complete analysis of the situation from various points of view. There is another article that deals briefly with the opposing views and it is entitled, "I.N.G.: The wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time". The article reads in part:
Nevertheless I believe that I.N.G., which is possibly the biggest and certainly the most expensive single undertaking in the history of Canadian scientific research is the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The author goes on to give the reasons he has for coming to this conclusion.
Then, I go to another article entitled, "I.N.G.: A good thing-under certain conditions", by K. G. McNeill. He has this to say in part:
There are, then, two very major logistic problems connected with placement and timing. At the moment, only at Chalk River can the initial development be done, but the final location must be elsewhere-somewhere within an easy hour or two of an international airport, a large industrial centre, industrial research laboratories, a number of universities, teaching hospitals, a major arterial road. With respect to timing, it must be built sufficiently swiftly that exciting experiments are not done elsewhere (as they undoubtedly will be in time), but the urgency must not be such that everything is built abroad. Such matters require decision-and I believe one of the worst things that can happen is for a firm decision about the future of I.N.G. to be delayed or not made clear. If that happens we may finally end up, not with an accelerator in hand, but with an accelerator in the bush, which no one by then will really want.
In summary, I believe I.N.G. is good for science, and that with the right conditions it can be good for Canadian science and good for Canada. But I do not see the guarantee of these right conditions in current plans.
DEBATES	6125
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The conditions which this gentleman lays down as to the location, point very definitely to the Kootenays as a suitable site for this development. We have an airport there; we have research laboratories, teaching hospitals, universities and all the rest. It was as a result of the interest in my riding in this important development, Mr. Speaker, that I asked the following question on January 23 of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question of considerable importance to the people of this country. In view of press reports about the recommendation of the Science Council of Canada that an intense neutron generator be built at a cost of $150 million, and in view of press reports that the federal cabinet has approved the expenditure of $1 million to investigate a site which would provide an ample source of cheap power, what action has been taken on this question to date and has the minister received representations from mayor F. E. DeVito of Trail, on behalf of the regional district, that the Kootenays be considered for this site as being an appropriate one for the development of cheap power-
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The United States is carrying on investigations in this respect in Chicago. Unless we are very careful the United States will be ahead of us in this very unusual and outstanding development. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's reply with respect to the government's intentions and policy, based on the recommendations of the Science Council of Canada.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and not a little sympathy to the submission made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. As he well knows, his area, and certainly the Trail area, has been active in the past in nuclear programs. It was the first source-a very efficient and economic source-of heavy water back in the early days of atomic energy in the mid-40's. From some of the things he said and from some of the things I have read I see no reason why his area would not be seriously considered for the location of a big research project of this type.
I.N.G.-the intense neutron generator project-would if undertaken in this country be the largest basic research program Canadians have ever initiated. Its capital cost would be in excess of $150 million and it would have an annual operating budget of $20 million a year. This is big money in anyone's terms.
January 29, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member said that there had been insufficient discussion of this subject. He derived that statement from the new publication "Science Forum", which I think is an excellent one. The authors of this publication are to be commended for their interest not only in I.N.G., its nature, its pros and cons and its location, but also for their intention of going on to explore other scientific projects, as well.
This publication states that the pros and cons of I.N.G. should be looked into very carefully. I can assure the hon. member that the government is looking into them very carefully. The budget for the coming fiscal year 1968-69 is approximately $1.5 million. Those funds are being devoted to further investigation into the desirability of this project being undertaken over the next six or seven years.
There is also the important matter of logistics-as the "Science Forum" described it-of location as well as timing. The hon. member is quite correct; you do need good transportation facilities and an industrial airport. You also need nearby an industrial complex that is really interested in scientific research so that the scientists can talk to other scientists in related disciplines. You need research laboratories of other types.
It is not clear that the I.N.G. development should be located at Chalk River. It could be located in one of half a dozen other areas in Canada. My understanding is that if this project were to go ahead it would have a high Canadian content-75 per cent or more-and would employ at least 50 top grade scientists.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, a big decision is involved. It is a very expensive project, one which can, however, break new ground in a big way in basic research in this country. It is being looked at carefully, and I have mentioned the scale of the budget so as to indicate the government's continuing interest and intent in this regard.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
January 29, 1968



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Montreal, Que., November 6, 4:18 P.M.
The Honourable Judy LaMarsh,
Secretary of State,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Madame, you have recently stated on private and public television that the CBC must be a factor in national unity, and whoever is not ready to conform to this aim should leave the corporation. You are already interpreting the bill on broadcasting in a manner which is most disturbing and which compromises the exercise of our profession. We take objection to the wording in a law which reads: The national broadcasting service should.. .contribute to the strengthening of national unity... We believe that our prime role, as producers, is to reflect and to interpret the living reality in a country. We do not believe that official government thinking is necessarily the kind of objective thinking which should be the basis of political and cultural information. The CBC is obliged to bring to light all forms of power in the sense that it must allow a confrontation of forces and debates on the relative values of any given society. If we are to be the vehicle for or to promote one political line then we are willingly conniving with an organ of propaganda. We have at all times refused to do so; we refuse to do so today, when what you are saying is in short, that the Left will be tolerated on the condition that it be reactionary. And in this way our function as producers will remain while governments come and go. And thus will it be as long as "Ici Radio Canada" and "This is the CBC network" are heard by Quebeckers, "Canadiens" and "Canadians".
The Association of Producers
Claude Sylvestre, Secretary
P.S. The Association includes CBC television producers in Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Halifax, Cornerbrook, St. Johns (Newfoundland), Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver. For the promotion of the interests of "Canadiens" and "Canadians".
THE SECRETARY OF STATE Canada
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 10, 1967 Dear Mr. Sylvestre,
I have your telegram of November 6 on behalf of the Association of Producers.
Let me first offer the reassurance, if such is required, that there is nothing in the Broadcasting Act nor is there any intention on the part of the government to in any way interfere with the fundamental right of Canadians, whether CBC employees or otherwise, to hold personal and private political views of their own choosing. The issue then is solely in terms of the responsibilities of CBC employees as, in a very real sense, the custodians of a powerful and valuable national asset provided and supported by the people of Canada.
I trust that I am interpreting your telegram correctly in thinking that we are agreed, too, that no CBC employee has the right to use these facilities entrusted to him as a vehicle for promulgating his own political viewpoint, no matter what that might be. Nor has any employee the right to use these facilities in a manner subversive to the democratic process.
As for your role in positive terms, I support, and I believe the legislation supports, your own interpretation that it is "to reflect and to interpret the living reality in a country." I accept that statement, provided you mean by "reflect" an honest attempt to mirror the broad spectrum of Canadian viewpoints, and by "interpret" an honest effort to present and explain these viewpoints with balance and perspective.
Nor can I take any objection nor find any in the legislation to your thesis that the CBC should not be "an organ of propaganda" in promoting particular political policies or points of view of any government, party, movement or indeed of any individual.
The Corporation does have a definite right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that these various policies and points of view are exposed to the Canadian people. But the decision as to which proposals are to be implemented rests surely with the people who, forming their judgments on the basis of the
[Stage Direction]
January 29, 1968
varied information available from the CBC and other media, express their will through their legislatures and their governments. The Corporation's mandate, in short, is to expose problems and identify options for the people, in a fair and balanced way, but not to dictate solutions or choices to them.
The question then is whether Section 2 (g) (iv) in the Broadcasting Act, in fact, infringes either on the essential independence of the Corporation from particular political policies and pressures or on the equally fundamental requirement that the citizens of Canada have available to them through the CBC a comprehensive and balanced exposition of all available viewpoints.
I think one must look for the answer to this question first and foremost among the reasons why we have a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, why it was decided in 1932 to establish a publicly-owned broadcasting system and why that system has been supported and re-enforced by succeeding Parliaments continuously since that time. Let me refer to but two of the statements which the then-Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, made in introducing the legislation in question:
"Canadians have the right to a system of broadcasting from Canadian sources equal in all respects to that of any other country. The enormous benefits of an adequate scheme of radio broadcasting controlled and operated by Canadians are abundantly plain. Properly employed radio can be a most effective instrument in nation-building with an educational value difficult to estimate."
And again:
"First of all, this country must be assured of complete control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence. Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
The underlining is, of course, mine-to stress the most fundamental fact!-the CBC was created, and has been maintained since, not as an agency independent or neutral from Canadian unity, but precisely to foster and enrich that unity. Or, to use the words of Bill 163-C, "to contribute to the strengthening of national unity."
Certainly the CBC is independent of government. As you so aptly put it, its function remains "as governments come and go." But the CBC never has been and is not now independent from Canada, from the existence of this country as a single sovereign state. In truth, the Corporation draws its own existence from the very fact of Canada.
That does not mean, of course, that the CBC is bound by the concepts of national unity laid down by Mr. Bennett in 1932 or by any other government, past or present. Surely the applicable concept or form of national unity at any point in time is precisely what the people of Canada at that point in time want it to be for that point in time. If the process of nation-building is never ending, so certainly the political arrangements of a single unified state are not bound in time or cement.
As I have noted previously, we agree that the CBC has a right and obligation to contribute to that process by, in your own words, reflecting and interpreting the various viewpoints available at any particular time concerning these arrangements. But in meeting this responsibility, the CBC must act within the bounds of its overall mandate to contribute to the development, not the destruction, of our national unity, whatever particular form the people of Canada might will for it at any given point in our history.
In that context and in those terms, I find nothing in the new broadcasting legislation to contradict the role of CBC producers as you yourselves envisage your professional responsibilities.
Sincerely,
Judy LaMarsh.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 30, 1963