1968-02-01

INDUSTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the correspondence exchanged between the premier of Nova Scotia and myself concerning the steel situation in Cape Breton.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, I wish to table copies, in English and in French, of the regulations regarding the basic questions concerning the unification of the Canadian Forces, established under section 13 of the National Defence Act, section 6 of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and section 44(f) of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, in order to carry out the commitment made by my predecessor to the standing committee on national defence, on March 21, 1967.
tEnglish]


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Chairman, preparatory to the federal-provincial conference which will begin next Monday, I ask the permission of the house to table, in English and in French, copies of
a document called the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of provisional standing order 15A I propose that the matter of the allocation of time for discussion in the committee of the whole 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, which is government order No. 36 on today's order paper, be referred to the business committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of provisional standing order 15-A the matter stands referred to the business committee.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether, as has been reported to be the view of the premier of Quebec, the special committee set up to create a bilingual and bicultural National Capital Commission will be the first step toward the elimination of the existing National Capital Commission? Is it the policy of the government to eventually get rid of this commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you could draw that conclusion. I would be glad now to table the document. I should have done it this afternoon, since it has been made public. This is the first step in consultation among the three governments, consultation which also
6234	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry will include the municipalities concerned, in the development of a national capital area.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the promise of the Minister of Public Works on December 6 last that a committee on the national capital region would be set up early in the new year, will the Prime Minister consider expediting the striking of this committee and the referral to it of this whole question of a bilingual and bicultural national capital?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss that with the minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the President of the Treasury Board that the government has a measure to reduce the down payment on N.H.A. houses which it is prepared to introduce if it can get agreement of the opposition parties, and since the New Democratic party is prepared to forgo any debate on the resolution stage if other parties are willing to follow suit, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government will undertake to introduce this measure immediately so we can see the bill. Then a discussion could take place with regard to any further curtailment of debating time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss that with the minister. He mentioned the matter to me this morning, and I hope to see him about it later in the day.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Is it the intention of the government in any event to bring this legislation before the house during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That depends on how we get along with the rest of this session.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
Following the objections expressed last night by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, could the Prime Minister tell us if consideration of Bill No. C-163 on broadcasting can be postponed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to proceed; but of course in dealing with this bill we are acting within federal jurisdiction, as were previous parliaments when they dealt with broadcasting legislation. I read in the newspaper this morning remarks to the effect that we were rushing this legislation through.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
As mentioned by the Prime Minister, I understand that the matter comes under federal jurisdiction. But does not the Prime Minister believe that it would have been wise and that it would still be wise, under the circumstances, to hold consultations with the provincial premiers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: May I
put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Can the Prime Minister give assurance to the house that this question will be on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, so that it will be discussed with the Quebec authorities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the premiers of all the provinces were sent a draft agenda. They were asked if they wished to make additions to that agenda. The only addition which was made was suggested by the premier of Nova Scotia. I think we have quite enough on the agenda at the moment to keep us busy for three days. Any other item that any premier wishes to bring up can be brought up at the end of the meeting under "other business".


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a letter from the premier of Quebec with reference to consultation on the bill in question, and what was the nature of his reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I read in the morning press a reference to the fact that I had received such a letter, but I have not
February 1, 1968

received any such letter. I have not been able to trace any such letter. I am still looking. At the moment I have no recollection of such a letter, and there is no record of it being received.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the completion of the $650 million coal deal with Japan, can the minister confirm that he will be meeting with the attorney general of British Columbia on Saturday to discuss the early construction of a new port to facilitate shipment of this coal?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan that I know of to meet on Saturday, but I understand the minister will be in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday. It will be possible for us to meet at that time and make further arrangements with respect to the port facilities that are required.



FINANCE


[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. As the government has had before it for some time now the report of the special committee examining into the question of what Canada's attitude should be toward foreign investment in this country, would the Prime Minister say when he expects to make a statement to the house on the government's attitude to this very important matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the report to which my hon. friend seems to be referring is the report of a task force on the structure of industry in Canada. That report has been completed and is now being translated. I hope the translation will be ready shortly, and I will then be in a position to indicate to the house what should be done on it.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister not had the report of the committee that was set up under the President of the Privy Council to study foreign
Inquiries of the Ministry investment in Canada? Has the Prime Minister not had that report for some time now, and is the right hon. gentleman not going to report to the house on the government's attitude to this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend realizes that this is the report of a task force. That task force was to make a report to a committee of the cabinet, and there will be a report from the committee of the cabinet to the full cabinet. That is the normal way of doing business, Mr. Speaker. When that report has been considered by the full cabinet we will then be able to take a decision as to what statement should be made.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question. Are we to take it that eventually, it is hoped before the session ends, the government is going to make a definite statement to the country on the government's attitude to this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it will be possible to make the report of the task force public before that.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence. Have arrangements been made to distribute to the members of the house the documents that he tabled a few minutes ago? If not, will the minister make such arrangements?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my intention is to move a notice of motion for these papers to be referred to the standing committee on defence, which I hope will be convened pretty soon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, my question was will the minister arrange for members of the house to be supplied with copies of the documents he tabled. I think the minister has facilities in his department for reproducing these papers which may not be readily available otherwise.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.
February 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS ON AMENDING LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
To meet the wishes of several Canadian members, is it the minister's intention to reconsider his decision on the omnibus bill so as to allow a separate vote on abortion and homosexuality and to hold a free vote on these two questions of morals and conscience?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I did not announce a decision, I expressed the wish, which is still valid, that when the wording of the bill is studied, there will be much less opposition thereto than there is now. Once again, it is a wish and the policy on this matter should be announced by the government in due course.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister inform the house whether this bill will be considered before the forthcoming convention of the Liberal party? [English]


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister that is really in the nature of a representation. I should like to ask whether he would now consider referring that clause of the bill to the standing committee on health and welfare so it may be studied together with the subject matter of the private bills now before the committee.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: The hon. member for Sherbrooke referred to several clauses.
As far as the clause which the hon. member has in mind is concerned, the studies which will be made in the standing committee on health and welfare will surely serve in later discussions.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime 
Minister with respect to the correspondence between himself and Premier Smith which was tabled today. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that his government promised aid over and above the aid which has been set forth in the correspondence and which is to be given under certain conditions to the Sydney steel operation. It is this further assistance that the government of Nova Scotia and the Sydney steel workers are now waiting for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but no doubt Premier Smith will wish to discuss this matter over the week end, when he will be here. I understand from radio reports that that is his intention.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I ask the minister to avail himself of the opportunity to speak to his Prime Minister and to the premier of Nova Scotia over the week end to further the argument that he has been advancing for the government to be prepared to assist above and beyond that assistance which is spoken of in the correspondence.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has the minister received an invitation to participate in a public debate which will be telecast on the French network of the C.B.C. about Bill No. C-186, and could he tell us whether he is in favour of such a debate to inform the public on that labour matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that question is in order; I do not see its urgency.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR RETURN OF OVERPAYMENTS FOR LODGING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Have the United Nations, UNESCO section in Geneva, sent an official protest to the
February 1, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian government with a view to recovering an amount of $3,212 from Logexpo and from a temporary Montreal motel?


Mr. Speaker:: I respectfully ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.
tEnplish]



BERMUDA-PROPOSED DIVERSION OF CANADIAN FREIGHTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we have asked for a copy of this report, and just as soon as it reaches us it will be carefully examined and we shall give consideration to what should be done.']
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. I have given him notice of it. The planned diversion of all Canadian freighters from Hamilton, Bermuda, to Saint George on March 1 will have the effect of increasing the price of Canadian goods in Bermuda. Since this action is discrimination against Canada, will the Prime Minister request the Canadian Trade Council in New York, which handles all Canadian trade for Bermuda, to get in touch with the Bermuda port authority in the hope that this policy, which is unfair to Canadian shippers and especially to Atlantic port shippers, will be reversed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of this diversion which apparently was ordered to relieve congestion at the port of Hamilton, and our interest in this matter has already been communicated to the Bermuda marine and port authority. It is understood also, Mr. Speaker, that a protest has been directed to the authority from a number of sources, including the Chamber of Commerce in Bermuda, which is one reason for changing the effective date of the diversion from January 1 to March 1. The matter, as I understand, is being given further examination in Bermuda and the Department of Trade and Commerce is keeping in close touch with the situation.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I must say that in his brief absence he has been missed by us all. Has the government
6237
Inquiries of the Ministry received representations from any organization representing Canadian citizens who are survivors of nazi concentration camps urging that a bilateral agreement be made with the federal government of Germany for the compensation of all Canadian citizens and residents who have suffered persecution but have not been properly compensated to date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that though his question is important it is not the type of question which should be asked at this time. Perhaps it might be placed on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports from a responsible organization, Amnesty International, that certain political prisoners in Greece are being subjected to various forms of torture, and since our government has recently recognized the Greek government, will the minister look into this matter and perhaps send a protest to the Greek government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, we have asked for a copy of this report, and just as soon as it reaches us it will be carefully examined and we shall give consideration to what should be done.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Bearing in mind the importance of agriculture to the province of Nova Scotia, can the minister advise us when action will be taken in connection with the ARDA task force report on the nine eastern counties of that province?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Negotiations are proceeding normally between the two levels of government.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In view of the length of time this matter is taking would the minister consider making this report available to interested parties, including the federations of agriculture in the province of Nova Scotia?


Maurice Sauvé: If it is possible, with pleasure.
February 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES LOSING JOBS THROUGH UNIFICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him what plans are being made to find other jobs for prevailing rate employees of his department who are being thrown out of work because of unification.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that several provincial premiers have indicated that their provinces will not proceed with the federal medicare scheme, can the right hon. gentleman advise us whether arrangements are being made under the authority of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to ensure that provinces which do not proceed with the implementation of medicare will not suffer financially as a result of such a decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be making a statement on medicare as soon as possible-immediately after the constitutional conference, I hope.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-AGREEMENT RESPECTING CONTROL WORKS ON FRASER RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: This question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having in mind the serious and costly floods affecting the lower Fraser river valley in British Columbia, can the minister indicate the date by which agreement between Canada and British Columbia in connection with flooding conditions on the Fraser river can be expected?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I just received yesterday a report in that connection indicating that within a few days-if a few days can mean three or four weeks-an agreement between Canada and British Columbia will be concluded in that connection. [Mr. Sauvg.l



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I
wish to direct the following question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the sharp decrease in freight car loadings during the past two months, has the hon. gentleman drawn this matter to the attention of his colleagues handling economic portfolios in the hope that they might adopt a more aggressive attitude in connection with this country's economic affairs and thus avoid a decline in freight traffic and lay-offs of railway employees?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think there are any who are more concerned about the future economic activity of this country than are my colleagues who are charged with this area of responsibility, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that they will take every step necessary to ensure that the level of car loadings will increase in the months ahead.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has authorized a task force to inquire into the possible establishment in Canada of an international development centre or world university, as it is sometimes called; and in view of the Prime Minister's correspondence with interested groups in Winnipeg and elsewhere, can the right hon. gentleman say whether he or some member of the cabinet will be making a public statement on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was no task force looking into this matter. I asked Professor Plumptre, who has had a great deal of experience in this field, to make an examination of the feasibility of a proposed international development organization whose headquarters might be in Canada. He has now finished the first stage of his work and has made a report to me. I got it yesterday, and I shall be looking at it over the week end and getting in touch with my colleagues concerning it. I hope to be able to
February 1, 1968

make a report on this very interesting idea before very long.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if this is the kind of academic institution he has in mind for his retirement years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is nothing academic about this, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the chairman of the committee on broadcasting films and assistance to the arts.
In view of the statement made yesterday by the Quebec premier on the legislation now under consideration in this house, can the chairman of the committee tell us whether he has invited the authorities of the province of Quebec to submit their point of view to the committee he chairs?


Mr. Speaker:: That question concerns the proceedings of a committee which has yet to report to the house; it is out of order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My question is urgent because the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not a matter of urgency but simply that, under standing orders, this type of question cannot be put, even if it is urgent.



MANPOWER

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED DECREASE IN RETAINING PROGRAMS On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in connection with pre-employment courses under the adult education program.
In order to enable the thousands of eligible persons to attend those courses, does the minister expect to purchase the necessary accommodation to give those courses?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have
Inquiries of the Ministry reached agreements with each of the provinces on the number of available openings in the retraining program.
Now that I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked me if 24 hours had elapsed between the notice of deportation and the actual deportation of Mr. Wilson.
I can inform the house that Mr. Wilson was arrested on Friday morning and deported on Saturday evening. More than 24 hours, therefore, did elapse between the two events.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I would ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether it is not this government which buys the openings of the province, and whether this government is not responsible for classes being available?



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr.-Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Because of urgent-representations I received today from the city of Fredericton will the minister assure the people of central New Brunswick that during the forthcoming visit of the parliamentary committee on transportation the capital city of New Brunswick will be included and not deleted, because all other capital cities in Atlantic Canada are in its itinerary?


Mr. Speaker:: I am just wondering if this is not a matter for consideration by the committee.


John Chester MacRae: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FRUIT-REQUEST FOR REGULATION OF SUBSIDIZED IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement that another Canadian canning factory is closing its doors due to the great importation of subsidized fruit into Canada, has the government any plans to offset this detriment to such companies by means of quotas or adjustments in tariffs?

February 1, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all the facts of this case, but if in fact it could be established that subsidized products are being imported into Canada we would be in a position to apply countervailing duties, which would be the appropriate action. I would be glad to have the particulars of this case from the hon. member.
rural development



MANITOBA-ARDA AGREEMENT RESPECTING INTERLAKE REGION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Has there been any cut-back by the federal government in cost sharing programs under ARDA and FRED for the present fiscal year? Specifically, has there been any cut-back in the programs covered by the comprehensive agreement for the interlake area of Manitoba, signed by the minister and the premier of Manitoba in May, 1967?


Maurice Sauvé: There are no cuts for this year nor for next year, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask a question related to that asked by the hon. member for Selkirk of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I wish to ask the minister whether the task force to develop specific programs in fisheries, forestry, recreation, agriculture, industry, water, mining, economics, manpower, community and social development, and urban and rural development, as it is to apply to Newfoundland, could be expanded to fit the needs of British Columbia as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is more a speech than a question, and I do not think it is in order.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has he received a request from the chairman of the school board of either the city of Toronto or Metro Toronto, I forget which, asking for an interview with him to discuss the question of the education of immigrant children in the 
area of Toronto? If so, what was the minister's reply to that request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether a question of this nature can be asked on orders of the day. I would not think it is nationally urgent to ascertain whether the minister has received that request.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that anything that happens in Toronto is necessarily of national importance, but I do suggest that this question relates to a matter which is exemplified in Toronto but which is of consequence to many other parts of Canada. It relates to a desire by a board of education to discuss with the minister a system for the education of immigrant children.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member thinks I have erred and that the matter is urgent, he can give me appropriate notice and the matter can be set down for consideration later today.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Naturally, it concerns manpower mobility.
In view of the fact that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has been saying for a year that a Liberal member of parliament is about to join his party, could the hon. minister tell us whether that member is the hon. member for Lotbiniere?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I recognize in all sincerity that the separatists have never broken any windows in my house, but that is no reason for me to join a movement which I consider utopian.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, also on a question of privilege.
I want to state that if the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) wished to join our ranks, he would not be accepted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
February 1, 1968

I should like to ask the minister if, in his talks with the Quebec premier, the matter of the imperialistic ambitions of the Quebec government came up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Quebec newspapers recently reported that the minister had stated that the federal government would no longer contribute to the winter works programs next year.
Is the minister in a position to confirm or deny this report?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should put his question directly. He cannot ask that newspaper reports should be confirmed or denied.


Martial Asselin: In that case, Mr. Speaker, that is what I want to ask the minister.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have indicated to the provinces that it was not our intention to renew our program on its present basis.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I addressed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, recorded at page 6012 of Hansard as follows:
In view of increasing prices can the minister say whether he intends to reactivate the committee which last year inquired into the cost of living in Canada? If so, when will it resume its hearings?
In the absence of the minister his parliamentary secretary said he would take the question as notice. Is the minister now prepared to reply?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the house leader about the feasibility of making a reference to the
Inquiries of the Ministry standing committee on consumer affairs. In the light of the state of the business of the House of Commons and the contemplated length of the session I am not at all sure that this will be probable although, as I said before Christmas, I am anxious that certain references should be submitted to such a committee.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Has he in progress a study into the rising interest rates that have been brought about, particularly in the housing industry, during the last few weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to know whether he has received the report of a study concerning the rising interest rates particularly with regard to housing within the last few weeks.


John Napier Turner: I have a difficult enough time keeping track of my own portfolio.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the answer I received from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs today are we to assume that the cabinet as a whole has agreed that the question of rising interest rates is not a matter of concern to consumers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may wish to assume that but he may not ask it as a question.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at the time the legislation was brought forward-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question of the minister and has received an answer. Evidently the answer is not satisfactory so far as the hon. member is concerned. That, however, cannot be made a point of order or a question of privilege.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I believe the matter of interest rates is one of the things the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was set up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This cannot be a point of order. The hon. member has asked a question and received an answer. I am sure

February 1, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry answers are not always satisfactory to the hon. members who ask questions. This may be the case here, but it is not in order now to argue whether or not a minister has a certain responsibility.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday to the effect that he hoped the government would complete its consideration of the medicare question on Thursday, can he say whether this consideration has been completed and, if so, why the statement as to the decision the government has made is being put off for another week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. The consideration by the cabinet has been completed.
I am putting together a report which I wish to take up with the premiers of the provinces who asked for the reconsideration and who will be here during the week end. After that is completed I will make a statement in the house.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked a question. I now have the reply.
By December 26, 1967, all employers in Canada numbering 433,000, who deduct and remit taxes from employees, had been issued forms T-4 and, in the case of larger employers requiring greater quantities, a reorder form. Early in January the district taxation offices were in a position to fill any orders received. Since these forms are not required to be filed until February 29, 1968 it would seem that the distribution provided ample time to meet this deadline, and it is not considered necessary to waive the penalties provided in law under these circumstances.


Mr. Jack Mclnlosh (Swiff Current-Maple Creek):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently yesterday I referred to

the wrong form. I referred to the T-4. It should be the T-l.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will have another answer tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which is supplementary to the one asked of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Today the minister stated that there is certain legislation nearly ready but that he does not intend to introduce it. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a similar statement with regard to legislation he has ready. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what justification there is for ministers not bringing forward this important legislation at least for first reading so that we may see it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, one justification, Mr. Speaker, is the progress we have made in the last two weeks. However, legislation which is not now on the order paper will be placed on the order paper so that first reading may be given to this legislation before this session is concluded. As I said yesterday this will include legislation concerning the Canada Development Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if the government is desirous of having legislation passed, whether it would not be advisable to place it on the order paper. I should like also to ask whether he does not think it inadvisable that ministers of the crown should indicate to the press that they would bring down certain legislation were it not for the failure of the opposition to agree on some particular point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can deal in substance with my hon. friend's question. Perhaps I should indicate that the items with which we will deal immediately after the broadcasting legislation has been disposed of are on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister intends to make a statement concerning the whole question of priority of
February 1, 1968

legislation for the balance of this session, could such a statement be made on motions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question on the orders of the day and I am replying to that question now. However, I am quite willing to wait until tomorrow. It will not take me more than a minute to indicate the business which will be before the house. There are the amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, both of which are up for second reading. Then there are the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drug Act. These are the items of legislation which will be considered after the broadcasting legislation. Then of course there are the amendments to the Criminal Code. By that time there will be additional legislation on the order paper to which I think we could give first reading.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Can the hon. Prime Minister tell us whether Bill No. C-186 concerning the Canada Labour Relations Board is also on the priority list of items to be passed during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention that piece of legislation because it is now before the committee. As soon as it is reported back from the committee we will be dealing with it in the house.



REPORTED INCREASES IN PRICES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether in the past few days his attention has been drawn to the very sharp increases in the prices of prescription drugs, which increases have virtually wiped out the reduction resulting from the wiping out of the sales tax. If so, I should like to ask the minister what his department is doing about this problem.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite accept the preamble to the question. However, we are following the movement of prices of prescription drugs, particularly at the manufacturers' level.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



COPPER-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Some months ago the minister undertook to look into the matter of the very substantial increase in the price of copper. He said he was having his officials look into this and that later he would be prepared to make a report to the house. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received that report and, if so, what is the outcome of that investigation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, although I am a little uncertain I thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce had dealt with this matter in the house. I will have a search made of the records to determine whether or not that is so.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the present inflationary surge of the Canadian economy, can the minister tell us whether he intends to adopt new measures to stabilize the housing construction sector in order to promote capital investment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and I will refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 31, 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:: Order. When the committee rose last evening clause 2(h) was being considered.
6244	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we are now considering clause 2-


Miss LaMarsh:: Still.


Michael Starr: Still. This clause has many important aspects to it. A great deal of opinion has been expressed and no doubt will continue to be expressed as we consider this clause. In the interests of progress on the bill in the committee stage I wish to propose to you, sir, and through you to the minister and the committee, that we stand this clause and that subsequent clauses be called by Your Honour. I make this suggestion in the hope that we might pass a number of the clauses of the bill to which hon. members are not inclined to direct themselves.
If Your Honour called the clauses following clause 2, any hon. member of the committee who wished to direct himself to that particular clause could so indicate by asking that it stand. If there is no response from any hon. member to that effect we could carry the clause. Then after we have gone through the whole bill we could come back to those clauses which have been stood. We could now pass those clauses to which no hon. member wishes to direct himself, and come back to the discussion on subclause (h) of clause 2. I make this suggestion, and hope hon. members will agree with it, in the interests of making progress on this piece of legislation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 2, to call the other clauses in order, and if there is no other clause to be stood to continue with the consideration of each clause?


Mr. Priliie:: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of getting on with the business we are quite agreeable to the suggestion made by the house leader of the official opposition, namely that the clauses be dealt with in the manner suggested by him. But may I also state that we will then be standing clause 2(h). I would add, in connection with that particular clause, that we were in favour of the original drafting which was suggested by a member of the official opposition. We accepted the compromise drafting which came from a member of the official opposition, and we would not agree to any later change in that particular subclause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should establish a few more ground rules. Do
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	February 1. 1968
I understand it is agreed that wherever there is an amendment which is proposed to be put from either side of the house, we indicate that, stand the clause and then come back to it, so that we know to which clauses amendments are proposed?


Michael Starr: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, Mr. Chairman. I suggested that if, for example, clause 9 is called and a member of the committee wishes to speak to it or move an amendment to it, he indicates that by saying "Stand". Consequently we will stand the clause and move on.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, no.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Ontario acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it may be that I did not understand correctly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). Does he want us to pass all the clauses we find acceptable and then return later to the controversial clauses?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, perhaps for the benefit of the hon. member I may repeat my suggestion. I suggested that in order to make progress on this bill we stand clause 2 and call each subsequent clause. If there is an indication by any hon. member that he wishes to speak on a particular clause, all he has to do is ask that it be stood. I make the suggestion in the hope that we can pass those clauses to which no hon. member wishes to address himself or with regard to which no amendment is to be proposed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 2 stands. Shall
clause 3 carry?


Michael Starr: Stand.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this clause, and I should therefore have it stand.
February 1, 1968


Michael Starr: Stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 3 stands. Shall clause 4 carry?
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6:


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Mr. Chairman, we are not given time to consult our files and notes as we go along. I wonder if that is really good procedure.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I made the proposition in the hope that it would meet with the approval of all hon. members. Evidently the members of the committee are in agreement with the suggestion; they seem to be well versed in the bill and know exactly which clause or clauses they wish to speak to or propose an amendment to. I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe, in the interest of making progress on this bill, whether he would not look at this situation in the same way as other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the appeal of the hon. member for Ontario to the hon. member for Lapointe. Perhaps we could achieve amicability about this procedure if we hesitated for just a moment to let the hon. member for Lapointe and others look at the bill and make a note of the clauses that they want to stand; or perhaps Your Honour would read the marginal notes as you call each clause. If we take this slowly I suspect that perhaps in 15 minutes we will carry about 40 of the clauses, or maybe more. Then we could return to the clauses which have been stood. Perhaps if we took a few moments now there would be a better understanding on the part of all hon. members as to the procedure we are pursuing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the Chair in calling a clause will read the marginal notes, to assist hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We are on clause 6, "Duties of full time members. Oath of office." Shall clause 6 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Clauses 7 and 8 stand.
27053-394J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 stands.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 stand.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 stands.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 stands.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that anyone who wishes a clause to be stood should rise in his place and say so, so we will know who it is.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 23-Setting aside or reference back to Council.


Mr. Sianbury:: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 24-Revocation or suspension of broadcasting licence.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-Appeal to Supreme Court.


Maurice Allard: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 27 agreed to.
On clause 28-Political programs and referendums.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause 28 stands.
On clause 29-Punishment.


Mr. Sherman:: Stand.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have an amendment to move to this clause.
Clause stands.
Clause 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-Report to parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 32 agreed to.
On clause 33-Definitions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Stand.
Clause stands.
6246	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting On clause 34-Corporation established.


Maurice Allard: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 35-Outside interests.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 36-Management vested in president.


Maurice Allard: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 37 agreed to.
On clause 38-"Executive vice-president".


Maurice Allard: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 39-Objects and powers.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 40-Corporation an agent of Her Majesty.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 41-Acquisition and disposition
of property.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 42-Expropriation.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 43 agreed to.
On clause 44-By-laws.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 45 agreed to.
On clause 46-C.B.C. to be proprietary corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 47-Five-year capital program. Miss LaMarsh: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 48-Annual report.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.

DEBATES	February 1. 1968
On clause 49-Definitions.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 50 agreed to.
On clause 51-Ministerial regulations.


Gilles Grégoire: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
On clause 54-Penalty for establishing stations without authority.


Maurice Allard: Stand.
Clause stands, a (3:40 p.m.)
Clauses 55 to 60 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 61-Continuation of Board of Broadcast Governors.


An hon. Member:: Stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 62-Continuation of C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 63 agreed to.
On clause 64-Broadcasting licences issued under Radio Act continued.


An hon. Member:: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clauses 65 to 67 inclusive agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall schedule A carry?


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask whether clauses 3, 19, 28 and 47 have been stood? I was called out of the chamber for reasons which I do not care to disclose at the moment, and I should like to ask if those four clauses have been stood because I will have something to say about them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: According to my notes those clauses have been allowed to stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clauses 3, 19, 28 and 47 have been stood.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Thank you.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall schedule A carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
February 1, 19$8
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall schedule B carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee is considering clause 2 (h).


Mr. Nugent:: May I first put on the record an official apology to my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax. I know that much of the time of the committee could be saved in the discussion of these clauses if there were consultations with other members of other parties and if there were interparty discussions. I think this has been done. The amendment moved yesterday had been agreed to by the minister, and the minister carried out her agreement to get the members of her party to support it in order that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax should carry. When I first looked at this amendment, I thought it was all right. I did put on the record some reservations I had after reflecting upon the amendment.
However, I feel we must amend this clause still further. I have discussed my reasons for saying that with some other members and I feel they are still valid. The amendment, as it reads now, deals with conflicts and provides that they shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the interests of the C.B.C. This clause derogates from the consideration of the public interest. I feel it is the first duty of all members of parliament to direct any regulating body to have paramount consideration for the public interest. If we carry out our duty as legislators, we cannot derogate from that. I cannot see, therefore, how we can allow this clause to pass. I am sure that on reflection hon. members would not want to have expressed a view which was in direct conflict with our duty, remembering that the paramount consideration is the public interest. Any wording that would have accomplished this would have been acceptable. However, as the clause reads it is a derogation from the expressed duty to pay attention to the public interest.
I explained yesterday the amendment that I hope to move and which I hope I am still in a position to move. I believe it would be easier if we were to vote on this clause as amended and defeat it. That would wipe out the clause and then the minister could move a

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting new clause or someone else could. In considering our course of action, I should like to run over the various means by which we may get ourselves out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. It may be that other members do not interpret the situation in the same manner as I do and I may be taking up the time of the committee needlessly. However, if members agree with me that the only interpretation that can reasonably be given to the amendment moved yesterday results in a derogation of the duty to act in the public interest, then we are in a dilemma. If we vote against the clause as amended the clause is removed and it is open to the minister or anyone else to suggest a new clause.
As I said yesterday, the government inserted this clause for a very special reason. Where there was a conflict between the private and public sectors the government wanted to express the view that the public sector should prevail. I feel that the amendments that have been moved have been motivated by the feeling that the original clause 2(h) was too strongly in favour of the public sector and we wanted to tone it down. I suggested that if there was this feeling in the committee, then perhaps the clause should provide that where there is a conflict of interest and everything else is equal the public interest should prevail. I had hoped we would be in a position to move such an amendment. However, whether or not hon. members agree with me that the wording of this clause shall provide for an all-prevailing public interest, as originally proposed by the government, or whether it shall provide simply a balance and when everything else is equal we tilt the scales slightly then, I believe everybody can agree with me it is a question which should be resolved by a standing vote. In other words, Mr. Chairman, no matter how we handle this clause the will of parliament should be recorded by numbers at least, if not by names.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Therefore I think the simplest solution is to ask the committee to vote against clause 2 (h) as amended. This would have the effect of removing it altogether, in the expectation and belief that the government still wants to give preference to the public as against the private sector of broadcasting and will bring forward a new amendment which will either be in substantially the same form as the wording of the original paragraph or will be in a somewhat modified form giving preference to the public sector only to the extent of tilting the
6248	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting scales in its favour, all other things being equal.	,
There is one point in subclause (h) as originally framed that I thought worthy of mention. It commences with the words "where any conflict arises". A conflict arises in a case where only 1 per cent of the argument is in favour of the public sector and 99 per cent in favour of the private. Yet under the wording of the original subclause the public interest must prevail in any event. I do not think that the committee wants to go that far, Mr. Chairman, and the subclause obviously needed some amendment.
I hope I am not being unkind when I say, after reflection, that the amendment passed last night should not be allowed to stand since it derogates so clearly from the duty we have to make sure that every regulatory body as well as parliament puts the public interest first. Therefore I for one am prepared to suggest a new subclause (h), though I hope the government is too. However, our first task should be to vote on and get rid of the amended subclause (h).


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona wishes to move a motion he will have to present it to the Chair.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not moving an amendment now, Mr. Chairman.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, will the Chair advise me for my own edification whether the committee is now voting on a special amendment or on subclause (h)?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On subclause (h) as amended.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Then I wish to make another suggestion to the committee. I find that I cannot accept subclause (h) as amended, with all due deference to my colleague and in all sympathy for others on this side of the house who feel that the amendment proposed yesterday and accepted by the committee will benefit this subclause.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the amendment in no way alters the essential meaning of subclause (h) as originally worded. The various discriminations against private broadcasters and the other objections that some of us on this side of the house have raised to the wording of subclause (h) are in no way eliminated or resolved by the amended subclause, which simply moves the intent of the subclause to some other subclause in this clause and does not take care of the protection of the public interest.

DEBATES	February 1. 1968
I intend to move a further amendment to subclause (h) that I hope will be acceptable to the minister and the members on the government side of the house in that I think it goes some distance to accommodate the minister's concern for the wording of the paragraph and yet still protects the public interest and the private broadcasters against what I sincerely feel is a discriminatory piece of legislation. My amendment would substitute several words in place of some of the words in the amended subclause (h). It would delete all the words between "public interest" and "the objectives" and would substitute in their place the words "in a manner mindful of". The amended subclause would then read:
Where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest in a manner mindful of the objectives of the national broadcasting service.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is still service paid, both Up and in letter, to the objectives of the national broadcasting service but no longer would paramount consideration be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service. That is the section of the subclause that is unacceptable to me and I think to many others on this side of the chamber. We do not agree that paramount or primary consideration should be given to the objectives or interests of the national broadcasting service or the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system.
As I said a little earlier in the debate, we believe that the primary consideration in this area of broadcasting, that is, the area where conflict arises between private and national interests, should be the public interest, the interest of the general viewing and listening public, the people reached by broadcasters whether national or private. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit this amendment for the consideration of the committee:
That all words in paragraph (h) of clause 2 between the words "public Interest" and "the objectives" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in a manner mindful of".
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair doubts whether this amendment is proper. If there is no objection it can be accepted by the committee but if comments are to be made on whether the amendment is in proper form the Chair will be pleased to hear those.
February I, 1968


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Perhaps the minister could indicate whether she is prepared to accept the amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Sherman) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 46.


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


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a brief question to the minister about this clause because there is an application here which has not been discussed in our lengthy debate. The question has to do with the extension of service. The objective of the national service is outlined in subclause (g)(ii). It is to be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available. In view of that, what happens if there is a private application for a region which has only one service? Clearly the objective of the C.B.C. is to go in there with its own service. Does the language of this clause prohibit the new council from providing alternate service for the public in a given area under this circumstance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Certainly not.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Will the minister please elaborate that answer? Surely the objective of the national service is to extend service to all parts of Canada. Under this bill that objective must prevail. I am merely asking this question. If the C.B.C. is not prepared to go ahead and instal a service in a given area, that does not change its objectives. I suggest to the minister that where there is a private application, bearing in mind the objective of the C.B.C. the council would have a hard time trying to resolve the matter.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member. I have made very clear previously that there is nothing in this clause, and I would not have accepted any amendments that ran counter to this, which gives an automatic right to the C.B.C. The bill indicates the pre-eminence of the public service in the system. It should be remembered when we talk of the C.B.C. that we are not talking about a few owner operated stations, the ten English television stations, five French television stations, 24 English radio stations and seven French radio stations, but
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
about 129 C.B.C. affiliates. These are all part of the service.
There is absolutely nothing in the clause which would bind the council, the B.B.G., or whatever the regulatory body may be, not to give licences to private broadcasters and to hold potential licences until such time as public funds may be made available so that the C.B.C. can go in there, either by affiliate or with its own hardware.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, I do not think the minister has totally answered my question. The minister's answer seems to suggest that the objectives of the C.B.C., as she sees them, are not the objectives as seen by the present directorate and expressed by the present official policy of the C.B.C. At the moment that policy is to apply for what is known as every other station. As the minister no doubt knows, this has created an impossible position for the existing regulatory body. The minister's statement appears to repudiate the stand of the C.B.C. with regard to extension of service through C.B.C. facilities. A brief answer to my question will suffice. Does the minister agree that the C.B.C. should have its own stations and carry its service through its own stations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 22 which has been stood and which we shall deal with later gives the governor in council the responsibility of laying down guide lines with respect to the system. We are talking about a system which includes affiliates; we should not talk only about the C.B.C. The B.B.G. is required to operate within those guide lines as laid down by the cabinet.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am trying to be helpful
and to avoid something which has existed for many years, but what has troubled the system for many years still seems to be implicit in this clause. What will the Board of Broadcast Governors or its successor say when faced with an application from a private element if the C.B.C. is not at that time in a position to instal a station but asks, nevertheless that that channel be reserved for it? Can the B.B.G. or its successor, as a matter of policy, grant that licence to the private applicant in order to make sure that alternate service is provided?


An hon. Member:: Yes.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Since the minister does not wish to answer that question perhaps I might
6250	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting suggest that the fault with the amendment as carried last night is that it says that the objectives of the national broadcasting system shall take priority even over the public interest. I do not see how anyone can read the provision in any other way. That is why I take such violent exception to it, and at the risk of repeating myself-I am afraid I am doing so-let me say that I cannot understand how any member of this committee can allow a clause to stand which says that any consideration should take precedence over the public interest.
The amendment just moved by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South exemplifies the way in which the public interest could be served by giving preference to the national broadcasting service. I believe this is a legitimate objective of the government and that the majority of this committee is prepared to go along with legislation which will achieve such an objective. I do not really believe that all those who supported the minister in the last vote are any happier than I am with the amendment which was accepted last night. I believe they are all anxious to see more common sense introduced in this subclause.
The reason we are in trouble over this subclause is that the minister has agreed to an amendment which, on reflection, the opposition felt was a mistake. This has led to a spirit of stubborness, of digging in our heels. The attitude of hon. members opposite is: we have made one mistake; we accepted an amendment but from now on we shall stay put. I do not think we really want to leave things as they are. I have drawn up an amendment which I feel gives the national broadcasting service a preference, but not an overwhelming preference. The original subclause says that where there is a conflict between the two systems the objectives of the national system must prevail. I have put in the phrase "all other factors being equal". As things are now, if the weight of the national interest amounted to only 5 per cent and the weight of the public interest to 95 per cent, the national interest would be bound to prevail. I do not think anyone can be happy about a subclause which would produce that kind of result.
We have confidence in the Board of Broadcast Governors. What we are trying to do is give them a guide line and we certainly should not give them a guide line which ignores consideration of the public interest. We want to give the board a guide line to the effect that when there is any doubt conflicts should be resolved in favour of the national

DEBATES	February 1. 1968
system. This would really be serving the public interest.
Consider the situation in a sector where there is no television coverage and where private enterprise is willing to provide such coverage but has been unable to get a licence. Under the terms of the subclause as it stands the C.B.C. could say that in 20 years time it intended to put in a station and there was not room for two stations. It might be in the public interest that those living in the area should not be deprived of television services for 20 years and that private enterprise should therefore be allowed to provide it. But it would be impossible to reach a decision along these lines in accordance with the guide lines as now drafted by the government. Certainly the amendment accepted last night would make a decision in favour of the public interest no easier to reach. I feel I should fight this provision for the rest of the week or for the rest of the year, if necessary, rather than have it said that any committee of which I was a member passed legislation such as we now have before us.
I therefore move:
That subclause (h) as amended be amended by deleting everything after the word "system" and by substituting therefor the words "all other factors being equal the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail."
I wish to apologize for not having written out the amendment itself. I have written out the subclause as amended and the wording is almost identical with that of the original subclause except for the additional words to which I have just drawn attention. All we are doing is seeking to provide guide lines on a reasonable basis having full regard for the public interest in these cases.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo brought up a specific example with regard to second television stations in places where there is only one service at present, and the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona confined his latter remarks particularly to that point. The national broadcasting service does not mean exclusively C.B.C. owned and operated stations. As the minister pointed out, it also means affiliated stations which carry the national broadcasting service but are not owned by the corporation itself. They have a contract or agreement with it.
There may be many places in the country in which the C.B.C. wants to establish its own
February 1, 1968

stations and there is already a private station in operation, but it can only do that when the government makes the necessary money available to it. It seems to me that the members of the regulatory authority are going to use some sense in coming to their decisions.
We have the current examples already mentioned of Saskatoon, Sudbury, Victoria,
B.	C. and St. John's, Newfoundland, where the
C.	B.C. would like to establish stations, but it is not going to be able to do so because the government will not make the necessary funds available. I maintain that if it became evident to the regulatory authority that those funds were going to be withheld indefinitely, for a long period of years, it would then consider applications from private people to establish private stations which would become affiliates of the C.B.C. and which would carry the national broadcasting service. I think common sense would prevail. I would like to see C.B.C. owned stations established, but this depends upon the government making the funds available. The problem is not as real or as big as some hon. members think it is.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Does the hon. member not feel that the public interest should be the deciding factor and not the national broadcasting service? Which should be the deciding, overwhelming and paramount factor, the public interest or the objectives of the national broadcasting service?


Robert William Prittie: I am sure the hon. member will not consider this a satisfactory reply but I wish to point out that what we are talking about is an extension of the national broadcasting service. These places will get that national service either through a publicly owned station or through a privately owned station which becomes affiliated with the C.B.C.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond has stated the case quite well but there is one qualification. In my presence not more than 48 hours ago a key figure in the C.B.C., speaking at a public meeting, said it was an objective of the C.B.C., where alternative service was a consideration, to establish its own station. The case in point was Kingston. The policy of the C.B.C. as of this moment, and presumably it has not yet been changed by the new executive, is to apply for a licence for a second station wherever a privately owned station exists and where there is a demand for alternative service. There has been no clarification whether the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting C.B.C. interpretation of this as an objective is in agreement with the government's position regarding the objectives of the C.B.C.
At present there are requests for a second service in 10 or 12 centres, and until the new regulatory agency knows whether the C.B.C. is going to put its own facilities in those centres these communities will be confined to a single service. Here is a case where I suggest the objectives of the national service, as outlined in this clause, would almost require the regulatory agency to say that these communities must wait on the availability of C.B.C. funds in order to get a second service through a C.B.C. station.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I can agree with much of what the hon. member has said. It is true that the C.B.C. wants to establish its own stations in a number of places. But what is required is long-range capital policy planning. I think it will be the duty of the government to make known to the C.B.C. very soon what capital funds will be made available to it during the next few years. If it is not going to have capital funds made available to it to build stations in ten different places but just enough for three or four places, this should be made known to the C.B.C. and then the regulatory authority could be guided by that information. If the C.B.C. cannot get the funds to establish a station in Kingston for the next ten years, then the regulatory authority will be guided by that fact. If the authority knew there would be only a two year delay they might postpone a private application. What is needed is long-range capital planning, with the details made known to the C.B.C. and to the regulatory authority.


David Orlikow: I think all of us would agree with the policy of the C.B.C. that where there is a private station it should be permitted to establish a C.B.C. station. In fact I think this ought to be government policy.
When criticism has been made of private television stations that they do not do enough original programming, that many of their programs are canned, that they buy many of their programs from the United States or Great Britain, that they do not carry enough public service broadcasting and public affairs programs-this has changed recently-that they do so little in the field of live dramatic programs, in the field of symphony music, ballet and so on, members of parliament and members of the public who are defenders of the private system have told us we cannot
6252	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting expect private stations to do the kind of programming which we expect and have been able to get from the public broadcasting system.
That being the case I think it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the regulatory agency, not to take steps which will freeze out the C.B.C. in these centres which have been mentioned. To take Kingston, the example mentioned by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, if the C.B.C. is frozen out the people there will not have an opportunity in the foreseeable future to get the kind of programming which only the C.B.C. has done and is doing. I have no hesitation in supporting the C.B.C.'s policy that second stations should be reserved for it. If the legislation does not spell this out clearly enough I would be in favour of making it clearer so that the regulatory agency will keep in mind when granting licences that in all the cities of Canada one of the stations ought to be and must be a C.B.C. station.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I am drawing the right conclusions from what the hon. member has said, but if he was not arguing against the idea of the so-called parallel service I refer him back to 1963 when I was the original author of this concept in Canada. Certainly I advocated it long before anybody else. I totally agree with what he said but I repeat that the problem is merely one of a time lag. Can this policy be justified and maintained while a large number of people are deprived of a second service even though there is somebody else who is prepared to offer it to them?
I agree with the hon. member that there should be long-range planning. But first there must be a commitment. We must decide whether we are going to go this route or not. If we are not, then the problem I have mentioned will not exist. However, the fact is that there has been no clarification of this point.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am not
preaching for a call here but, holding the views I have expressed, if I were a member of the regulatory authority and had an application before me involving Kingston, where there is a demand for a C.B.C. station, I would certainly find out from the government when funds were likely to be made available for that station. If I should be told that funds would not be available until 1975, 1976 or 1977, I would say that the people of

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
Kingston should not have to wait that long. If there were a private applicant that application would be heard now. I believe these people should get broadcasting service either through an affiliate of the corporation or through a corporation owned station. I believe the members of the regulatory body would be governed by their knowledge and by common sense too.


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


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Chairman, this is my first attempt to take part in this debate. It is not my intention to delay unduly the passage of this bill. However, I find that this subclause as it stood originally and as it stands now as amended is absolutely incompatible with all the beliefs I, as a citizen of this country, hold.
Without presenting a political philosophy of any kind I should like to point out some of the logic which I believe hon. members should apply to this subclause before we give final consideration to it. The original subclause in the bill would make the national broadcasting service paramount in this country. From reading the bill one can only come to the conclusion that if there should be any difference between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any of the private stations the solution to the problem would, ipso facto, be in favour of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The exact wording of subclause (h) of clause 2 is as follows:
-where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail;
In other words, it matters not one iota what the reasons might be for the objectives of the private broadcasters if the objectives of the national broadcasting service which are being put forward are in the least contrary to the action being pursued by the private broadcasters. In this case the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail.
The next question we must ask ourselves is, who shall decide what are the objectives of the commission. A little farther on in the bill we find, under the heading "Powers of the Council", clause 16. Clause 16 reads as follows:
(1) In furtherance of Its objects, the Council, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, may
(a) prescribe classes of broadcasting licences;-
Tebruary 1, 1968	COMMONS
I do not find that reprehensible. However, I *do find paragraph (b) reprehensible. It reads as follows:
(b) make regulations applicable to all persons holding broadcasting licences, or to all persons holding broadcasting licences of one or more classes,
(i)	respecting standards of programs,
(ii)	respecting scheduling policy in relation to any category or categories of programs,
(iii)	respecting the character of advertising and the amount of time that may be devoted to advertising,
(iv)	respecting the proportion of time that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan political character and the assignment of such time on an equitable basis to political parties and candidates,
(v)	respecting the use of dramatization in programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan political character,
Paragraph (b) lists in all nine fields in which the executive committee of the council can establish its own objectives and make regulations. In other words, the members of the council are empowered to establish and enforce their own objectives. Once again it is a case of setting up a body somewhat like a bureaucratic group of civil servants which can make its own laws, enforce those laws and make a final judgment from which there is no appeal.
I suggest to hon. members that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona should not be dismissed without serious consideration. As a matter of fact, while I was in the house yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South proposed an amendment which put the case very clearly. The effect of his amendment would have been to make the public interest paramount in respect of any consideration given to quarrels between the private and public sectors of broadcasting. It seemed to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member suited the purpose admirably because we are here not to protect the C.B.C. but rather to protect the public interest.
My friends to the left, geographically and politically, say it is the same thing. It is far from being the same thing. One does not protect the rights of individuals or private enterprise by assigning the rights to some government bureaucracy. This House of Commons is the root of government. We assign some of our authority to ministers but ministers are answerable to this house. From past experience we know that the authority which has been vested in organizations, committees
DEBATES	6253
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and commissions such as the Board of Broadcast Governors or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not defended before the bar of the House of Commons. There have been many occasions since I have been a member of this house when questions, particularly concerning the character of programs, have been raised in respect of the C.B.C., at which time the minister has stated that answers to the questions cannot be given in the House of Commons because the C.B.C. is not responsible to her.
I say that the subclause as placed in the bill originally and as now amended gives very great authority to the commission which will be governing broadcasting in this country henceforth. I would agree to this amendment or to the original subclause if we had any indication of agreement from the broadcasting industry of this country that that industry should be subjected to this type of regulation. Without having inquired of the private broadcasters, I feel quite sure that no private broadcaster in this country would be agreeable to or suggest such a provision as subclause (h). I dare say that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters finds this subclause very reprehensible, because it will hold back the private sector of broadcasting in this country in order to make way for a slowly moving and lethargic publicly owned broadcasting system.
I do not believe it is good enough for some members of this house to rise and say that the private broadcasters of this country have not done a good job. I think the private broadcasters have been pushing the C.B.C. into more and better programming. The private broadcasters have been leading the way in broadcasting in this country and deserve better treatment than we are offering them under subclause (h) of clause 2.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I say to the minister that if she can rise in her place and say that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is in complete agreement with subclause (h) and thinks it will not inhibit their growth, ingenuity and adventurous spirit, I will take a different attitude to it. But I am quite sure the private sector of broadcasting in this country finds this section of the bill just as reprehensible as I and other members on this side of the house do and, in fact, as some members on the minister's side of the house do. I refer to those hon. members who realize that the passage of this subclause will put television and radio in this country under a cloud and will mean that
February 1, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting producers in the private sector will be apprehensive of any type of exploration in programming for fear that it may offend a member of the broadcasting commission.
Therefore I would like the minister to give me the assurance at this time that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, whose members represent the private broadcasting sector of the country, are not opposed to this subclause. Otherwise I would urge hon. members to amend the subclause so that it will read along the lines put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, to the effect that decisions will be made after giving consideration, and only consideration, to the public interest. If this is not done I would ask that the subclause be entirely removed from the bill.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to have to stand again-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who told you to?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -to comment upon this subclause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who told you to?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If the hon. lady would stand and say what I think she should say it would be quite unnecessary for me to rise again to speak on the bill. It is the hon. lady who opened the lid of Pandora's box. It is she who knows better than anybody, I hope, where the C.B.C. has got off the track. I have assured the hon. lady on more than one occasion, and I repeat it now, that if she is going to look after the best interests of the people of Canada I will pack up and sit down. But in the last few days I have seen no indication whatsoever that she is going to be anything but a quiet tool of this crown corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Nobody has ever accused me of being quiet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or of being a tool.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Crown corporations are a danger in that, in my opinion, they are an abdication of free enterprise. They are enabled, through the power of government, to do some things which some people in government think are not capable of being performed by private enterprise.
I shall repeat as often as I can, that I believe private enterprise can perform any service for the people of Canada better than ponderous crown corporations. Some crown

corporations are slow in their empire building, but the C.B.C. is not. The C.B.C. has an over-burgeoning budget which has reached, I believe, some $170 million a year. I do not think their budget will go down. Yet we appear to be receiving less and less real service in the public interest.
What can be done about this situation? We certainly will not improve it by increasing the powers of this crown corporation to the point where they can blot out all competition from private interests. When I hear members of the house applauding this bill and the particular subclause under discussion, I know we are getting to the heart of the matter and they are pleasing those people who want to blot out all competition from private enterprise.
I admit there may be times when a crown corporation does give us service. We vote them the money to do this. But I venture to say that never, but never, does a crown corporation give us better service, dollar for dollar, than private enterprise. If you put unlimited funds at the disposal of a crown corporation, how can private enterprise hope to compete?
Private enterprise has proved time and time again that in the broadcasting field it can put programs on the air for a fraction of the money that is taken out of the taxpayers' pockets for the C.B.C Surely this alone is a good reason why this subclause should not be passed. If it does pass, there will be no competition whatsoever as long as the C.B.C. wants it that way. Surely all we are doing here, unless we are to have a co-operative system in Canada, is getting out guide lines. The guide lines in respect of the C.B.C have been ignored continually during the last three or four years. The objectives as outlined in subclause (g) have always been those laid down by parliament as guide lines for the C.B.C. But there is no question at all that today the people of Canada are convinced that these guide lines have not been followed.
The reason given for the C.B.C. not following these guide lines is that there must be freedom of the air. How can this subclause give freedom of the air when it cuts out all possible competition to the C.B.C.? I could not agree more with my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona when he says he cannot vote for anything which purports to put itself above the public interest. I am not satisfied so far that the definition of public interest is what I and, I sincerely believe, the people of Canada think is the public interest.
February 1, 1968

Let me refer to the objectives as set out in subclause (g). I do not say this in ignorance of the real issues but the question is, who is going to carry out these objectives, if they are going to be carried out at all? My argument is well founded if put forward only on monetary grounds. I think I have covered that question. It is more economical for private enterprise to provide good programming.
However, we know that private enterprise has, naturally, a selfish interest. It is looking for profit. In spite of the fact that private enterprise can provide programs more cheaply and, I think, more effectively in a great many cases, it naturally wants to avoid the non-profitable areas of broadcasting. It is not particularly interested in education for education's sake. Private enterprise cannot afford to provide high-powered stations to cover the hinterland, the deep north, the outlying districts. Naturally, true free enterprise is concerned with making a profit and wants to reach the most people for the least amount of money.
A progressive government wants to cover non-profitable operations, particularly if it will mean national unity, education, Canadian identity and the bringing of culture to our people. As taxpayers we have been willing up to now to pay a very large subsidy to this crown corporation which has by and large covered these areas. I like to think that this is a stopgap measure and eventually the population of Canada will expand to the point where every section of our country can afford free enterprise coverage, which is cheaper and can better depict public opinion.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Even if the C.B.C. were to carry out the objectives outlined in subclause (g), it would still be a government fed organization. Both the hon. lady and the C.B.C. say they do not want to be told what programs to put on. I for one do not want to have to tell them in detail what programs to put on, but I am quite certain that unless the C.B.C. has competition and unless it has guidance from above, it will continue to provide the type of program we have had until now and which is not acceptable to us. Therefore we are forced to try to improve the bill which alone can delegate the powers and lay down the guide lines for this vast corporation.
The C.B.C. is not the only crown corporation which has got out of hand. The first trip I made as a member representing my great constituency was to Montreal for an interview
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting with the head of the Canadian National Railways. Before I could even introduce myself or put forward the proposition which I went down there to present to the C.N.R. I was told, "Go home to Alberta, mind your own business and leave our railroad alone". What did they mean by "our railroad"? One might have thought they meant the railroad of the public of Canada. However, that is not what they meant at all. They meant that the C.N.R. was a power unto itself and that even members of parliament should not be allowed to question its officers on whether or not they could give a better service to the areas represented by members. This is just not good enough. At that time I stated to the C.N.R. that I was not a baby and that I happened to represent 70,000 people who wanted an improvement in the service. But I was told it was none of my business. It is my business to do something about what I think is wrong, and this also applies to the C.B.C.
I can tell from the smiles on the faces of hon. members opposite that they think Mr. Donald Gordon was right and I was wrong and that I am still wrong. I do not think there is any institution in Canada above parliament, and whenever we delegate powers to ministers, to the government generally or to officials of the C.B.C., all we are doing is saying that we are seized with the responsibility of looking after the public interests of Canada. I am heartened that there are a great many members of the house who will at least try to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded. I venture to suggest that the people of Canada look to us to ensure that this is done. I for one am not willing to abdicate the regulatory power which we have and to say that any goup of people, no matter how strong and how well informed they may be, can stand above parliament and say that their ideas of what the public interests are should be paramount.
It is often difficult for us to agree on what exactly the public interest is at any one time. As my friends to the left would say, one must sometimes go on and on trying until the necessary action is taken. The divorce bill is a good example. The members of that party were commended in many quarters in Canada for the way in which they worked almost ad nauseam until some result was achieved and finally action was taken. Our divorce laws are being very carefully considered.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member speaking about railroads and now about
6256	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting divorce and I wonder whether it might not be better if he would confine his remarks to the subclause under discussion, namely subclause (h).


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Subclause (h) refers to one thing only, the public interest, how it can best be served and how the parliament of Canada should delegate its authority, to whom and why. I do not think I have wandered away from this broad reference because "public interest" is a very broad subject. Every section of Canada's public life is affected by this subclause and any possible amendments thereto. It affects the very roots of democracy itself. I believe I should not abdicate my responsibilities in this respect because we are dealing here with a matter which has a bearing on democracy or, if you like, bureaucracy, and there are people who believe that only through complete bureaucracy can there be freedom. I say that when bureaucracy predominates and becomes paramount there is no freedom.
Such a state of affairs may arise when there is an abuse of power on the part of crown corporations such as, for instance, the C.N.R. I do not think any member in the house who takes his responsibilities seriously would agree that a member of a crown corporation should say to me when I go to see him about an improvement for the welfare of my people that I should go home and mind my own business, even before I have stated my case. The case I intended to put to the C.N.R. involved the extension of two railroad lines, one of which was built and the other was not. One of them was the Pine Point railroad. If I had an interest in a private broadcasting station and sought to compete with the C.B.C. I would not want to receive the same answer I received from the C.N.R., that the matter is in hand, that they are handling it adequately, that they know all the answers and will give all the service necessary regardless of the cost to the taxpayer and regardless of whether or not the objectives outlined in subclause (g) are in fact being carried out.
Those who believe in free enterprise in Canada have a right to speak out. It is passing strange that if the people of Canada do not think so they should vote the way they do. The people of Canada not only want the free enterprise system to prevail but they are getting tired of our sitting here in the House of Commons and not doing something about improving the opportunity of people under free enterprise to earn a living.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	February 1, 1966
The complaint we hear more often than any other concerns how much, if anything, is being done in Ottawa to preserve the free enterprise system. Do we still believe in an honest profit for honest work or must we all become children of the state? I am tired of the fatherly approach. I, for one, am tired of being looked after from birth to eternity. Perhaps the only vestige of individual freedom left is the freedom to stand here and waste the time of some people. I assure you I am not wasting the time of the people who sent me here. If I want to keep coming down here, my only fear is that I may lose my nerve and not continue to fight for free enterprise, for the right of a man to earn a living and the right to compete with crown corporations no matter how much sanctity those corporations think they have.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There is no such thing as a crown corporation that is above parliament. We cannot abdicate the public interest and we do not intend to do so. If you have an ear to the ground, as I have, and if you listen to what the little people of Canada are saying you will find they want the government to withdraw from the business fields it occupies in Canada. These people want the right to compete, to put their time and energy behind their own self-interest and be good, free Canadian citizens.
There are a great many people in this country who still believe that the free enterprise system is the most effective, the most fair economically, the most challenging and the most satisfying which has ever been developed on this tired old planet of ours. I look at those areas of the world which do not have our system and I find there is not a citizen in Canada who would be willing to go there. The only reason it is worth while to stay here is that we intend to preserve this system as long as we have the power to do so. I still believe the people of Canada are going to insist that we have the courage to stand here and criticize each and every attempt to put the interests of any group above the interests of the people of Canada. It is not beyond our capability to spell out in each and every statute which we put on the books a provision that this gang over here or that gang over there shall not be preferred. As I take my seat I assure you that when legislation is proposed which will put the public interest above all other interests I will be the first to support it.
February 1, 1968


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition is in the chamber because I think he can be of some assistance to us in this debate. It seems quite evident that some members of his party are determined to filibuster this clause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert William Prittie: I do not know what the views of the official opposition are in connection with broadcasting matters.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South on a point of order.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond would like to reconsider his remark about filibustering. There has been no filibuster in this committee by anyone, particularly anyone on this side of the chamber. We have had a deep and urgent interest in this legislation. I feel that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond would like to reconsider his remark.


Robert William Prittie: No, Mr. Chairman, I would not like to reconsider it. I said what I thought was a correct interpretation of the situation now.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I looked at the citation in Beau-chesne a couple of days ago and found that a member of this house cannot impute motives to another hon. member. If the hon. member does not have enough courtesy to withdraw his remark, then I ask the chairman to make a ruling on the matter.


Robert William Prittie: I did not impute any motives to the hon. member for York-Humber. If I had to do so-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I said the reference was to any member, not to me.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond did impute motives to certain members of the party of the Leader of the Opposition. He so identified the people to whom he referred.


Robert William Prittie: If the hon. member for Winnipeg South had listened carefully he would have noticed that I qualified my remarks and did not include the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Robert William Prittie: I shall now continue with what I was going to say. I should like to know
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting what the views of the Leader of the Opposition are on broadcasting matters and what is the broadcasting policy of his party. I suspect his views are more in line with the views of the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Halifax, to whom we have listened this afternoon, in connection with this clause. If we could hear his views perhaps we could make some progress on this matter.
Some members have spoken this afternoon as if private broadcasting in Canada were in peril because of subclause (h), but it certainly is not. There are more private television and radio stations in Canada at the moment than there are C.B.C. stations, and there will be more in the future. Some of them are doing very well. There is no reason why private stations will not do well in the future. There is nothing in this bill which will prevent private broadcasters from establishing new stations and making money.
What the bill provides is certain objectives of broadcasting policy, and those objectives are given to the national broadcasting service to carry out. The national broadcasting service may consist of publicly owned stations or of privately owned stations affiliated with the C.B.C. They are charged with this specific responsibility. When I tried to move an amendment to impose the objective of national unity upon all broadcasters in Canada I was told that this was a special job for the public element. We are giving them this special job, so it seems to me they should have a paramount position. There is nothing in the bill which will inhibit private broadcasting. We are being subjected to delaying tactics, so I think it would help if we could hear from a spokesman for the official opposition as to what their broadcasting policy is.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing another attempt to get back to where we were something like a day and a half ago in the discussion of clause 2(h). I am not at all happy with the amendment that is before us. It suggests that all other things being equal the scales should be tipped toward the public corporation. Surely the task of any board adjudicating a conflict that might arise between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element would be to determine which side had the better case. If they arrive at a point where, all other factors being in balance, they are unable to make a decision, then their clear duty would be to resign or at least to pass on the dispute to the next level or reconstitute the board so new personnel
6258	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting could examine the question to ascertain which side had the better case. We do not need or want in this legislation a guide line that would inevitably tip the scales in one direction. It would not take many precedents to establish a rule embedded more firmly than the wording of the amendment before us might suggest.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It has already been suggested by one provincial figure that passage of this bill should be postponed till the conclusion of the constitutional conference. In view of the Canadian charter of human rights to be presented to the conference, this might be a good idea. For example, in this booklet that has been distributed to hon. members there is a reference to the United States declaration of independence and we read that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We also read that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends we are not to tip the scales in its favour but it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government.
These are very clear and ringing words in support of the argument that has been carried on for the past two days that the public interest, the government interest or the interest of crown corporations need not be identical. This is a point that seems to require a tremendous amount of reiteration.
Again in the booklet provided to hon. members, Mr. Chairman, we read the following:
In both the United States and France, there was embodied the idea that men shall not be deprived of liberty or property except in accordance with the law. This is a manifestation of the belief that men should be ruled by laws, not men; that a government has no more power than the people have agreed to delegate to it.
I hope this parliament will not be willing to delegate to the government more than its equal share of power in any dispute that may arise between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and private interests. There will be occasions when the private interest is not that of one individual who would come into dispute with the objectives of the national broadcasting service at some point in the future.
The charter of human rights from which I have quoted suggests that Canada needs a constitutional bill of rights. I am not prepared
IMr. Johnston.]
DEBATES	February 1, 1968
at the moment to argue that we need that constitutional guarantee as long as we have a parliament that is alert and courts that use their wisdom to decide cases between parties, not on the basis of some prearranged criterion that the government of the day might wish them to use.
I should like to read one further paragraph from this charter. At page 11 there is this statement:
A constitutional bill of rights in Canada would guarantee the fundamental freedoms of the individual from interference, whether federal or provincial.
That is a brave declaration, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that we seem to be prepared to write into this broadcasting bill a certain amount of interference with the individual and to say that where all things are considered equal the scale is to be tipped in favour of the crown corporation, whose interest is to be paramount. Perhaps it would be well from the point of view of the government to consider the broadcasting bill in relation to the Canadian charter of human rights, and it might also be a good idea to wait until the conference has concluded before proceeding further with this bill.


Mr. Slanbury:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I have some difficulty in detecting just what is the position of the official opposition on this question, and I think it is important that this be clarified. One of the benefits of our parliamentary system is that a party in this house can take a position that the people of Canada can later judge when they are given the opportunity to choose a government. I suggest that we in this house are not giving the people of Canada that opportunity until we determine what is the official opposition's position on this very basic paragraph in the bill.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke stated quite clearly what I presumed to be the position of his party. The hon. member for Athabasca stated quite clearly what may be the position of his party, though I am not sure. It seemed to differ substantially from the position taken in the past, both in the house and in committee, by the hon. member for Royal, who I understood to be the broadcasting expert and critic for the official opposition. It also seemed to differ substantially from the position taken by the member I understood to be the deputy broadcasting critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Halifax.
February 1, 1968

Yesterday we saw the spectacle of the hon. member for Halifax being abandoned, except for the companionship of the house leader of the official opposition, in his introduction of an amendment which those of us on this side of the house-certainly the minister-took in good faith as an amendment put forward on behalf of his party. I believe the minister went to some trouble to check with the broadcasting critic of the N.D.P. in order to see whether the amendment was acceptable to that party, though perhaps not with the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke because the position of his party has been very clearly stated. It is not a position with which I agree but I believe he has stated it clearly. I believe that we and the people of Canada have the right to know clearly what is the position of the official opposition on this point, one that is so central to the future of broadcasting in Canada.
It has been suggested that this subclause, either as originally worded or as amended on the initiative of the hon. member for Halifax, the deputy broadcasting critic of the official opposition, undermines democracy. Is that the position taken by the Progressive Conservative party? It seems to me that the position taken by the government is clear: it is that put forward by the minister responsible. Every member of this party on this side of the house does not completely agree with that position, but we all know what is the position of the government. Do we know what is the position of the official opposition? I am afraid I have not been able to ascertain it.
Does the official opposition agree or not with the original exposition of the place of public broadcasting given by Right Hon. R.
B.	Bennett some years ago and quoted so often during the debate, and which occupies such an important place in the report of the committee of which I have the honour to be chairman? I suggest there is nothing original in the wording of the subclause put forward by the minister. Subclause (h) is new to the Broadcasting Act, or will be if it is passed, but it is surely not new to our consideration of broadcasting in Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
When that great senior statesman of Canadian broadcasting, Mr. E. Austin Weir, made a statement to our committee during our consideration of the white paper on broadcasting, he said that a score of parliamentary committees from 1932 to 1958 and two royal commissions had declared the
C.	B.C. to be the core and dominant feature of
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the Canadian broadcasting system. He said the white paper prepared by the government did not state that predominance and he recommended, as did other witnesses, that it be stated and that our new act should make a legislative declaration of the predominance of the public sector of broadcasting.
This desire was recognized by the committee, as demonstrated by the hon. lady, in a number of places in the report which was tabled in the house on March 21, 1967. I shall refer to a few passages to indicate what this all-party committee had to say about this matter. On page 6 of the report, under our comments on section 3 of the white paper, are found these words:
The committee concurs with the general principles stated in the white paper. We urge, however, a clear legislative declaration of the pre-eminence of the public sector.
On page 7, at the beginning of paragraph 4 of our comments, are found the following words:
The C.B.C., as the prime instrument of public policy in broadcasting and one of the world's largest broadcasting organizations, needs a strong board of directors.
You will note the words "prime instrument of public policy in broadcasting".
On page 8 of our report, still commenting on paragraph 4 of the white paper, we said:
In assessing the C.B.C., the B.B.G. should take into account the financial resources available to the corporation, its mandate and its vital importance as the prime instrument of national policy in broadcasting.
Though this matter has been mentioned a number of times in the house it must be mentioned again, and I refer to the last paragraph of the report which is in italics to emphasize the importance each member of the committee attached to the statement I am about to read:
We express our conviction that the primacy of the public sector should be the paramount and continuing objective of the new legislation; that we must make more effective, and not undermine, the main instrument by which "national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened."
The last words "national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened" are a direct quotation of the words of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, spoken when he introduced the legislation founding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 35-odd years ago. That position has been adopted in many reports, but now I wish to refer briefly to the latest basis
8260	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting for public policy in this field. The report of the committee on broadcasting, 1965, better known as the second Fowler report, says on page 12:
We believe that private broadcasters can, and should, achieve a greater degree of common purpose, and should participate in the national objectives of the Canadian broadcasting system to which they belong, as well as continuing to render local services to their individual communities. But the private sector is unlikely to achieve the cohesion and unity that the public sector should have and, despite their near equality in total income, this necessarily means that the public agency -the C.B.C.-has the primary responsibility and must be paramount in creating and maintaining a broadcasting system that is distinctively Canadian.
While the private broadcasters are a part of the system, and while their rights and interests should have all legitimate protection, in cases of fundamental conflict between the public and private sectors the interests of the C.B.C. must prevail.
I shall leave that quotation for a moment to say that the drafters of this legislation recognized that perhaps that statement is too strong. They have carefully distinguished between the objectives of the public sector and the interests of the private sector and they have not placed the interests of the C.B.C. above the interests of the private sector. I continue quoting:
The simple fact-the crucial fact-which must be clearly understood is that the C.B.C. is the essential-
That last word is in italics:
-element of the Canadian broadcasting system and the most important single instrument available for the development and maintenance of the unity of Canada.
Also, on page 123 of this same report appear these statements:
The C.B.C. is the chosen instrument for public broadcasting in Canada. It is only a part of the Canadian broadcasting system; the private broadcasters also receive rights to use public assets and, in accepting those rights assume responsibilities to contribute to the national purpose of the system. However, the C.B.C. has the primary responsibility for providing excellent broadcasting services to the Canadian people.
Lower down on that page appears this statement:
Having been given the primary responsibility, the interests of the C.B.C. are paramount within the Canadian broadcasting system, but if it is to perform its function adequately and acceptably, it must be told what it is expected to do. It must have a clear mandate from parliament.
I interpose to say that that is one of the objects of clause 2 and particularly of subclause (g) which has already been passed, I believe. Returning to the report, I quote from page 125:
It should be clearly stated:-

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
I skip a paragraph and continue quoting:
-that within the national system, the C.B.C., as the chosen instrument of parliament, has the prime responsibility to provide broadcasting services to the Canadian people as a whole, and that the interests of the C.B.C. are therefore paramount.
In making its recommendations to the house the standing committee reflected the basic statements and principles which appear in the second Fowler report and in other similar reports which have been made through the years. I am delighted, as I am sure the majority of our committee members are, that the minister and the government recognized the necessity to make the clear legislative declaration that the objects of the public sector should be paramount. It is not only the majority of Liberal members of that committee, not only the majority of the official opposition on that committee-its chief critic was a member of the steering committee and helped to draft our report- not only the majority of N.D.P. members of that committee and not only those who drafted this legislation who have supported the concept and sentiment about which I have spoken and read. There was editorial comment following the release of our report, and I want to refer to two editorials which state the case clearly. One of these articles appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 22, 1967, and I quote from it in reference to the report of our committee:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It strongly affirms the pre-eminent role which the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should play in a national system.
Later the article says:
It has taken the best of Fowler and of the white paper, but has sharpened the main points of both and has kept in view the national purposes and special value of a public broadcasting organization.
Some members of the opposition might suggest that the Ottawa Citizen is more favourably disposed toward the government than are certain other newspapers. To please them I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal of the same date in which these words appear in an editorial on the subject of our report:
The basic importance of the committee's work is to reaffirm the role of the C.B.C. in Canadian broadcasting. Members of parliament from all sides of the Commons urge "a clear, legislative declaration of the pre-eminence of the public sector"- the C.B.C.
It is clear what all the bodies which have investigated broadcasting in this country over the years have recommended. It is clear what
February 1, 1968

the standing committee on broadcasting wanted. The government has made its position clear by adopting the recommendations of the standing committee. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke has made the position of his party clear and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has made the position of the New Democratic party clear. I wonder whether we could ask that the position of the official opposition be made clear at this point. Let members opposite tell us whether they are opposed to the principles I have just outlined. If, indeed, they are opposed to those principles, let us hear their position clearly stated. Let them, if necessary, put forward a further amendment to express their attitude. Then let the committee vote on it and make progress with this bill. It is incumbent on the party opposite and in particular, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond stated, it is incumbent on the leader of that party to tell us what he thinks about this broadcasting legislation.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks to make on the bill before us, particularly with regard to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Calgary. It has been the custom for most speakers to deal briefly with the general subject of radio and television in relation to this subclause of the bill. Many speeches have been made in the course of the last few weeks on the subject matter of this important bill. It is only since I have been paying particular attention to the bill in the last few days that I have become aware of the fact that there is such dissension and disruption in the ranks of the official opposition relating to their whole philosophy of their approach to broadcasting. I respect the hon. member for Calgary, who has spoken on a number of occasions and who spent a long time in the standing committee-


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: On a point of order, is the hon. member referring to the hon. member for Calgary South or does he have the hon. member for Winnipeg South in mind?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Both hon. gentlemen. The point I am making is that we have advanced a long way during our consideration of this bill, the foundation for which is the acceptance among all parties, with the exception perhaps of the Social Credit party, of a political philosophy generally favourable toward the C.B.C. and the advance of public funds annually in its support. This does not mean that the C.B.C is above criticism. Indeed, there is no other public body which has been
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting subject to as much criticism and investigation. But at least we believed that the Conservative party, along with the Liberal party and the New Democratic party, approved the concept of the public radio and television organization which we call the C.B.C. It is only as a result of the dissension and disunity which is so evident from the speeches of hon. members of the official opposition that we begin to realize there is an internal struggle going on within the party opposite as to whether it does or does not endorse the principle upon which the C.B.C. was established.
I recognize and understand the views of those who have indicated in the last few days that they are against public broadcasting or television. The former leader of the opposition never missed an opportunity in the House of Commons, even when castigating the C.B.C., to re-endorse the principle that a country as close to the United States as we are needed some organization such as the C.B.C. to represent what little Canadian identity we have left in this nation.
The C.B.C. is among the few media of communication that we control in this country through which we can emphasize the fact that we are a country and a nation. It is for this reason, because the C.B.C. has such a responsible role to play in the growth of this country, that we have adopted subclause (g) and outlined the four broad objectives of the corporation. In these circumstances I think it is about time the Leader of the Opposition let us know where he stands. Does he support the spokesmen for private enterprise over there or does he support those who believe in the C.B.C.?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he be more explicit and tell the committee on what occasion anybody in this party has spoken against the idea of a publicly-owned broadcasting system?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes. Only the other night the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings openly stated that he was contemplating bringing in an amendment whose effect would be to destroy the whole concept of a publicly-owned system. One would only have to read some of the speeches made today to realize that all too many members of the official opposition are against the C.B.C. and that when the chips are down they stand for private interests, the profit-making organizations.
Here, as I say, is a medium of communication which was designed to protect the
6262	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Canadian identity. And what do we hear from members of the official opposition? They object to the word "filibuster". If the word "filibuster" is too strong for their sensitive feelings, let us examine the history of the bill before us. Is it something brought up by the minister last week, something which is being rammed through the House of Commons? If it were a filibuster would be legitimate or at least understandable. But what are the facts? The facts show that the C.B.C. has been subject-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
In wonder if the member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is dealing with the amendment now under consideration or whether he is doing a history of the opposition party. The Chair has often called us to order when we strayed from the question or from the amendment under consideration.
I realize the hon. member has strayed quite far from the subject and I wonder if he should not stick to the paragraph (h) of clause 2 so that we may make some progress? Why does the member wish to prolong consideration of this bill?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the objection to clause 2(h) is an objection to the principle that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should exist, is existing, and should have priority over private interests in this country. This is all the objection really is. One group is supporting private interests and the other group, including myself at the moment, is supporting and defending the principle that surely this country should have some medium controlled by parliament, belonging to the Canadian people, and dedicated to the concept that we are a nation and that Americans do not and should not control all our fields of communications. This concept is reflected in subclause (h).
We have had intensive investigations of the C.B.C. and its operations. Just a few months ago hon. gentlemen who are now castigating the C.B.C. took advantage of a statement made by the minister, in which she suggested there was rotten management in the C.B.C., to stand up and protect the C.B.C. and castigate the minister. If we had time to compare their statements then with their statements now it would make funny reading. However,

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
as a result of certain studies and investigations we came up with a white paper which formed the basis of this bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks as closely as possible to clause 2(h).


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I entirely agree with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and as usual bow to your ruling. As amended clause 2(h) now reads:
(h) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service.
I think this was a fine amendment of the subclause. I presume it was drawn up by the hon. member for Halifax. I am not certain of that, but it sounds very much like his work because it does not depart from the principle that the C.B.C. is our organization, for better or worse, as opposed to that of private interests, and it also recognizes the rights of those private interests to a fair hearing in areas of conflict.
But that amendment has not satisfied all the members of the Conservative party, despite the fact that it was brought forward by a member as senior, as respected and as intelligent as the hon. member for Halifax. This can only lead to the conclusion that there is a definite difference of opinion in that party. This is a fair assumption because if it did meet the full approval of the Conservative party and reflected their philosophy and policy vis-a-vis the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, this clause would have been passed long ago and the committee would have moved on to another clause.
In discussing clause 2 (h) I am sure, Mr. Chairman, I may be permitted to bring it to the attention of the public that it is part of a bill based on the white paper, which in turn was based on at least three investigations of the C.B.C. However, in discussing it I want to point out that something other than the bill is at stake here, namely, the concept of the new emphasis that we have placed on standing and special committees of the House of Commons. Two years ago all parties in the house agreed to put more emphasis on committees, including the broadcasting committee-


Gilles Grégoire: Order.
February 1, 1968	COMMONS


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who endorses the separatists seems to want to holler order. Let him holler from his seat. I cannot see him in the chamber from here but I can hear him.
As I was saying, subclause (h) is part of a bill that derived its origin from the standing *committee on broadcasting. I would point out that the minister entered the spirit of the new committee system by giving that system complete freedom to analyse this bill, to criticize it, to improve it and to amend it to such an extent that subclause (h) actually came in its unamended form from the steering committee of the broadcasting committee.
On that committee was no less a person than the hon. member for Royal. That hon. member is progressive, and I know he has rather forward-looking ideas which may not necessarily be in complete accord with those of all his colleagues. This is normal, but at least he was one of the official spokesmen for his party in the broadcasting committee. When he, as a member of the steering committee, gave his blanket approval to subclause (h) it was only natural that the minister should expect speedy passage of it in committee of the whole.
After spending weeks and weeks on this bill, in the standing committee where it was subject to the scrutiny of members from all parties in the house, it would be only normal and natural for the minister to think that when the bill reached committee of the whole its passage would be rather speedy, because that was the idea behind the new emphasis on the committee system. I ask, what minister is going to have any incentive in the future to refer his or her legislation to a standing committee of the house for intensive study, only to find that all the arguments are repeated ad nauseam in committee of the whole?
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I respect the hon. member for Winnipeg South because I do know that of all the critics who have participated in the debate on subclause (h) he is one who has earned the right to stand up here and speak on this subject matter. Nobody has denied him the right to bring his amendments forward. But having brought them forward and presented his arguments concisely, lucidly and as eloquently as he could, it seems to me his colleagues would do a service to him, to the minister, to the house and to all of Canada to let matters proceed to a vote. The kind of help he has been getting he does not need because he has advanced his reasons with conviction and integrity, based
DEBATES	6263
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting on his experience in private life and on his experience in the committee.
It is not his participation that I object to, it is the participation by all the other members who have taken advantage of subclause (h) and the amendment to it to outline their basic philosophies on broadcasting and to suggest that we do not need the C.B.C. and that we should let the Americans take complete control of the field of communications. If this is how they feel, and this is how I think they feel, they should have said so on second reading when we were debating the principle of this broadcasting legislation.
If this is how hon. members opposite feel, then it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to call more special caucuses at two o'clock in the afternoon and find out where the Conservatives are going on broadcasting, whether they recognize the need and the necessity for the C.B.C. or whether they do not. If they do, then let us stop using the C.B.C as a whipping boy. I suggest, in deference to the hon. member for Winnipeg South who has done a fine and proper job in presenting his viewpoints, that his amendment should be put and voted on.


James Russell Keays: Now that the hon. member has spoken about an amendment and referred to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, would he mind speaking on the amendment before the committee which is the one moved by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There have been half a dozen amendments, Mr. Chairman, but I thank the hon. member for Gaspe for his usually eloquent and telling contribution to broadcasting. In turn I would ask him where does he stand? Does he support the public broadcasting system or the private stations?


Michael Starr: Both.


James Russell Keays: Instead of using all the verbiage which some hon. members seem to like I reserve my remarks until we reach the proper clause.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has given his answer and I will not seek to interpret it. I repeat what I have said, that even though somebody has stated they support both there should be a bias on behalf of C.B.C., since we have already accepted subclause (g). Possibly there is something in subclause (g) which some members may think could cause conflicts. Perhaps they would
February 1, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting arise as a result of the wording which says that the national broadcasting service should be extended to all parts of Canada as public funds become available, or as a result of the wording which says that people in all geographic regions who speak the French language or the English language must be served. Perhaps this is what is bothering some people. Maybe some people object to the idea that broadcasting should contribute to the development of the national unity. I am not sure what people are objecting to. All I can say is that so long as we recognize the necessity for a Canadian broadcasting service which belongs to the people of Canada, is paid for by the taxpayers and administered through parliament, at least in so far as its finances are concerned, then the least we can do, having recognized this, is to recognize that when there is conflict which must be decided in favour of one group or the other, then priority should be given to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
That really is the substance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halifax. I believe it is a reasonable compromise. It was accepted by the minister. If, on the other hand, certain members of the opposition believe there is no room for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, then I can understand their opposition to subclause (h). This is the reason I say with respect and sincerity that the Leader of the Opposition should take advantage of this debate to make clear where his party stands on this matter.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, during recent weeks we have heard a good deal about the campaign being carried on by members in the ranks opposite for the leadership of their party. This, however, is the first occasion we have had to view the hon. member for Verdun in full flight in his campaign for a cabinet post. I suggest that he has done an exceptionally fine job in carrying on that campaign. I am sure he has impressed his leader and his colleagues. We on this side of the house have not been impressed, but we have nothing to say in respect of the appointment he may be seeking.
The scandalous attack of the hon. member for Verdun was so diffuse that it is almost impossible to know where to begin or to determine whether it is worth while to take up some of the outlandish allegations he has made. For example, he made the assertion that members of this party have advocated


the abolition of the concept of public broadcasting in this country. This assertion is scandalous, out of order and improper. No one in this party has advocated such a philosophy. In fact a great many members of this party have taken the opposite position not only during this debate but also during the proceedings of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. We have supported the idea of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a publicly owned and operated system. We concede that it has done an admirable job through the years in binding this nation together and in helping to conserve the concept of a Canadian identity and national unity. It is utterly scandalous that anyone should suggest that we have taken a philosophical or political stand in this debate in opposition to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the concept of a Canadian broadcasting service.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough spoke at length in his usual intelligent and compelling way. Although his speech was interesting it probably constituted the most dangerous utterance anyone has made in this chamber during this debate. He stood up and challenged this party on the question of difference of opinion. He took the position that they on that side are members of an almighty united party, that they are all of one mind and belief and have the same concept and philosophy of a greater Canada and a greater broadcasting system. What immortality.
I ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough where the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, for instance, stands. I know where he stands because the hon. member stood with me, or I stood with him, when this bill was before the standing committee in opposition to subclause (h) of clause 2. The hon. member for York-Scarborough is aware of this, as is the minister. No one spoke more vociferously or more intelligently than did the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo in respect of subclause (h) at that time. I notice that he has been conspicuously absent during most of this debate. He may have been behind the curtains but he certainly has been absent during the votes on most of the amendments.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Where are the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Prince?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I was wondering when the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo would enter this debate. As for the members on this side of the house to whom the minister has referred, I should like to remind her that
February 1, 1968

they both spoke earlier in this debate. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo made his first contribution today. He did so after having implied to all members of the standing committee that he would stand or fall on this clause when it reached the committee stage in the house. What about the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for York-Humber? Where does he stand in respect of this all-encompassing philosophy?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, am I being asked a question?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Yes.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I should like to refer the hon. member to Hansard of this day. When he reads Hansard he will realize that I said that by no means was there unanimity on this side of the house and that I welcomed the fact that there are varying points of view on this question. I did say that I know the position of the government. Now, can the hon. member please tell me what is the position of the official opposition?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I am delighted to have that statement on the record because the implication in the hon. member's speech was that all was sweetness and unity over there and that there was division over here. Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak when this debate resumes after the dinner hour. May I call it six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to private members' business I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schrey-er), Post Office Department-Libau, Manitoba-protest on transfer of postmastership; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), Public Works-Vancouver-construction of federal building; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), National Defence-prevailing rates employees losing jobs through unification.
Divorce Law Reform DIVORCE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a Message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-187, An Act respecting divorce, with an amendment.
[Editor's note: For text of amendment, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that the house proceed with the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-187. The amendment is really to cure an oversight which occurred during the drafting of the bill. It would have the effect of continuing the power of the Ontario supreme court to deal with an action for annulment. That provision was inadvertently omitted in the redrafting of the bill. Under the former act parliament had not only the power to grant divorce but also to grant annulment on the ground of nonconsummation of marriage. The right to grant an annulment was inadvertently excluded from the new bill. The necessary amendment was made in the Senate and I am now asking for unanimous consent that the house proceed with the consideration of the bill as amended and presented by the Senate.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) assure us that there is nothing else in the Senate amendment than the point to which the minister just referred?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give that undertaking. I have been briefed on that point and am satisfied that it is the only point involved in the amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I can support what the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) has said. Despite attempts to bring in many notable amendments, including some that made considerably more sense dealing with the definition of what constitutes a high court in Ontario, the government supporters in the other place were pretty adamant. I regret that the one amendment that was brought in was not accompanied by several others dealing with points that we had raised earlier in this house.

February 1. 1968
Private Bills


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the New Democratic party, if this is the only point I think we can agree with the amendment. Like the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), I was hopeful that the other place might bring in an amendment to provide for a five year review, because it seemed to me this might be advantageous. However, I believe the practice with regard to annulments that has been followed over the years in the Ontario courts has been satisfactory and there is really no reason why this provision should not have been written into the bill. I think that in the discussions which took place in committee there was agreement on this proposition and it was probably inadvertently left out, as the minister indicated.
Mr. Pennell thereupon moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-187, respecting divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills. As there are no notices of motions (papers) on today's order paper, the house will proceed to the consideration of private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 16,	1967, consideration of the
motion of Mr. Stanbury for the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure most hon. members have become aware, I and some of my colleagues are quite concerned about the steady flow into this chamber of bills to incorporate more and more life insurance companies. I may say that our concern is shared by the Inspector General of Insurance, who at a committee hearing some months ago said that he and his departmental officials were quite concerned about the continual incorporation of more and more life insurance companies and were asking themselves

whether this was really necessary for the good of the Canadian economy. He also pointed out, quite rightly, at that time that neither he nor his officials were in a position to say: This is enough; we cut if off here. As the Inspector General of Insurance quite correctly pointed out to the committee, if we allow one Canadian citizen to hold a policy in a life insurance company every Canadian citizen must have this right.
At that particular committee meeting I suggested it was time the government and parliament began to look into the whole question of the savings of the Canadian people and the manner in which they were to be treated, because the basis of all economic development and progress in an economy is the savings of the economy in the form of personal savings of citizens and surpluses from business operations. It is of vital importance that we should have some control and direction of these savings for the development of the Canadian economy and Canadian society.
The continual proliferation of private life insurance companies is splintering the pool of savings. As far as I can see the only effect is to contribute to the chaos that has obtained for quite a long time now in our financial institutions, a chaos that occasionally results in the collapse of businesses of various sorts, a chaos that eventually causes financial troubles that create problems for the government and limit the development of our society and economy. We have been urging again and again in the house that the parliament and government of Canada should take a very long, hard look at this business of bringing in new bills to incorporate still more life insurance companies.
I should like to see the whole matter referred to a parliamentary committee or perhaps even to a commission of inquiry to investigate the net results of permitting the savings of the Canadian people to fall into the hands of private groups which have complete control over the manner in which those savings shall be invested, whether in the Canadian economy or some other economy. Far too much of the savings of the Canadian people collected by life insurance companies and mutual funds is invested in another economy. At the same time, of course, we hear continual pleas by government spokesmen that Canada requires a continual inflow of capital from abroad if we are to continue to exist, let alone expand.
February 1, 1968

I have for a long time, sir, been protesting that this is looking at only one part of the picture. I have complained that the government of Canada, this and previous governments, has been in the habit of pleading with our United States friends to lend us their money while at the same time allowing Canadian capital to flow out of the economy. I suggest that if this parliament refused to incorporate any more life insurance companies and decided that the operations of existing ones were to be examined thoroughly as to the effects on the Canadian economy of the disposition of the savings of the Canadian people in the hands of life insurance companies, we might have a basis for deciding just how we are to handle this key factor in economic development and progress.
I have suggested before and I suggest again that we took a slight step in this direction when we developed the Canada Pension Plan. In fact, I recall that at that time there were some wails from life insurance companies that were already beginning to feel the effects on their businesses of the coverage provided by the Canada Pension Plan. This cheered me up immensely. I thought: Obviously this is the way in which to deal with this problem.
I would not for a moment suggest that we should attempt to expropriate private life insurance companies. No one in his right senses would want to expropriate a whole raft of insurance agents. But I suggest that we should offer the Canadian people another and a better way of disposing of their savings than turning them over to private institutions. I can see that if the Canada Pension Plan were expanded to include options comparable with the options provided by private life insurance companies, something over $1 billion a year which now goes into life insurance premiums would come into the hands of the public authority. I would have thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) would seize very quickly on this idea, considering that he has had so many difficulties lately. Here would be a source of the funds that the government requires. They could be well protected by government bonds. This money could be made available for the sort of programs upon which this and any future government will have to embark.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
But before doing so I would again urge that we examine the alternative, which is to continue this business of incorporating anything up to a dozen new life insurance companies in
Private Bills
every session of parliament. To my mind this is utter nonsense. It is not as though we were expanding the pool of Canadian savings but rather that we are licensing small fishermen to fish in it. It is the same pool. We are fragmenting it into sections which are difficult to control. It is very difficult to determine what the final disposition of these funds will be. I would hope that the government and parliament will take this seriously under consideration.
There is a very strong tendency today in other fields of insurance to move out of the private field. Hospital insurance used to be dominated by private insurance companies. We now have our hospital bills covered by various public methods, depending on what province we come from. In my own province hospital costs are paid out of the consolidated revenue. When the government finally, if it ever does, gets around to the implementation of the medicare bill, much of the insurance business which was devoted to providing medical care will also pass into the public sector. There has been a continuing demand, of course, all across the country for the public authority to take over the insurance of automobiles because of the tremendous charges made by insurance companies for that type of insurance. But even more important than these is the question of life insurance savings because by and large these are a proportion of income which people set aside for their old age, to ensure the education of their children, and to ensure some economic and financial stability for the family. This should be the concern of the public authority, and I and my colleagues will continue stressing this every time one of these private life insurance bills comes before the house.
I know it may seem unfair that we should deal with those companies which stick their heads up here in this chamber and not do anything about the ones which never appear before us because they are already well established. But I am sure hon. members will have realized from what I have said that we do not consider blocking these bills as anything more than a preliminary step toward a complete review of what, as I said, is a chaotic situation in the handling of the savings of Canadian people. I hope that parliament will finally impress upon private individuals and members of the house the undesirability of bringing any more of these bills before the house until we have made a complete examination of the operations of life insurance companies and the part they play

February 1, 1968
Private Bills
in the development of our economy in Canada.


Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, once more we have before us the proposal of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company to become a federal company rather than a provincially incorporated one. That in itself raises some interesting questions about the whole subject of the operation of insurance companies. My colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), has just made the suggestion that perhaps some form of inquiry into this matter might be instituted. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps a commission of inquiry might be established. I believe that this bill and the principle contained in the explanatory note bring out very well one of the areas which such a commission of inquiry might explore. I refer to the rather strange practice under our federal system of government of companies being incorporated provincially and then seeking to transmogrify themselves into another form of corporate being. As the superintendent of insurance pointed out when a bill identical to this one was before the standing committee of the house in an earlier session, this is a somewhat different process than that normally followed in such a change.
If the argument advanced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, which I and other hon. members have advanced from time to time in connection with certain other bills, about the impact of the operation of insurance companies on the direction of investment of the pool of savings of the Canadian people is a valid one, and if one looks at the volume of business transacted by insurance companies, it should become apparent to all hon. members that this process is an important factor in influencing the direction in which our economy moves or does not move at the present time. I think one must agree that companies which establish themselves under the authority of a provincial legislature usually operate in that way for a while and then move into the field of a federally incorporated company. This is an important question which needs examination.
We hear a good deal these days about the problems facing the Minister of Finance and the government of Canada in exercising effective monetary and fiscal controls in the operation of the economy. Much has been said about the dangers which exist when the economy becomes overheated or suddenly becomes underheated. All these questions are definitely tied in with the kind of proposal

which in this instance is made by the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
As is pointed out in the explanatory note, the company has been established in Canada for a long time. It was incorporated by letters patent dated August 7, 1889, in the province of Ontario, and it is one of several provincial life insurance companies registered with the federal department of insurance under part IX of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The note goes on to point out the differences between the provincial and federal legislation in respect of the operation of insurance companies.
This brief explanation of the reason for the desire of the company to change its incorporation, which is the principle of the bill before us, was expanded on by Mr. Hum-phrys before the standing committee of the house on Tuesday, February 14, 1967. After having pointed out that the company was incorporated in 1889 by letters patent in Ontario, he went on to say:
Since 1897-
Not long after it first began its operations.
-it has been registered under the federal insurance laws and has been supervised by the federal insurance department, but as a provincial company. Therefore it had its powers under provincial legislation, but it had voluntarily made itself subject to the federal insurance acts and the supervision of the federal insurance department.
He went on to point out that the federal insurance act imposed certain restrictions on it and that in some instances acceptance of the federal rules has in his view created certain difficulties for this company from which companies incorporated directly by federal law did not suffer.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I suppose the proponent of the passage of this bill would argue that this inconvenience to the company should be removed without question at their request. However, so far as I am concerned the testimony opens up some rather important aspects, not only in relation to the general economic life of the country but the constitutional situation in which we find ourselves. We all know that a federal-provincial constitutional conference is to convene here shortly. We are aware that the conference will concern itself more with such matters as individual human rights; perhaps I should say with matters of the spirit rather than the flesh. Nevertheless, the fact that we are on the eve of what has been hailed as a very important federal-provincial conference on the future of our constitution brings to
February 1, 1968

mind many important areas which need to be considered but which are not in the agenda of the conference. These matters might well be considered further as we seek to develop a new constitution, if that is what we are seeking to achieve, for the operation of Canada as a federal state.
The complexities and difficulties in respect of this company raise in my mind certain questions about whether the present arrangement, which allows insurance companies to incorporate either federally or provincially and to operate under a hodge-podge of different laws and regulations, is desirable or is in the economic interests of Canadians generally. This kind of question might very well be examined by a board of inquiry with broad powers. Such a board could also get the views of provincial authorities who have had experience in dealing with insurance companies in their own jurisdictions. If we are going to have a more orderly direction of the flow of investment funds in this country in the future than we have had in the past, it seems to me there are obvious advantages to some kind of uniform legislation covering these companies. This would seem to be the case as long as we have private insurance companies operating in the country, and I expect that will be for a good many years yet. We should not leave it to the whim or fancy of a particular firm such as Excelsior Life to decide whether or not it wishes to operate under an Ontario charter or a federal charter.
This company, according to the evidence given by the superintendent of insurance, is one of the major companies in Canada, even though apparently it is not controlled in Canada. I can see some merit in such a company being governed by federal insurance laws and supervised by the federal insurance department. As Mr. Humphrys points out, the proposal by this company that it be changed to a federal company is purely voluntary on its part. Apparently the company has operated quite successfully since 1897 under the present arrangement.
This opens up the whole question of whether or not this kind of arrangement should be left to the voluntary action of the company or whether it is the type of thing that should be dealt with in a more orderly and rational manner through some such means as a special commission of inquiry. Such a commission would have powers beyond those of a parliamentary committee inasmuch as it would be able to spend more time and engage the necessary help to get evidence and opinions
Private Bills
from provincial authorities. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these ideas will receive consideration.
A large organization such as Excelsior Life obviously has not suffered too seriously from the existing disability. If this situation were left as it is until the matter can be decided in a broader way than by the simple adoption of this bill, that might be a more desirable course of action. If any temporary inconvenience of a minor nature, which apparently the company has experienced from time to time, should continue for a further period this would not seriously affect the operations of the company and might very well be more in keeping with the real interests of the Canadian people than the simple adoption of this bill by parliament.
There are many other issues inherent in this bill, just as there have been in some of the other proposals made by insurance companies in bills which have been coming before the house. One question which has received a lot of attention in parliament and in the country in recent years has been interest rates. Mention is made in the evidence given about this company that at one point there was a difference between the federal insurance laws and the Ontario law with regard to the amount an insurance company could invest in mortgages.
It was pointed out that in 1965 the federal insurance law was amended to permit companies investing in mortgages to lend up to 75 per cent of the value of the property, whereas formerly it was two thirds. At the time the federal law was changed the Ontario legislation still imposed a limit of two-thirds on insurance companies incorporated within that province. It was pointed out that while federally incorporated companies could then use the 75 per cent formula, this company was still restricted because of its provincial charter to two-thirds. I suggest this situation raises the whole issue of the direction of mortgage funds into various areas of mortgage activity. Since Excelsior is a large company it probably has directed a large pool of funds into mortgage activity.
We have heard a lot of discussion about the availability of mortgage funds for certain purposes. We recognize that the pool of these funds is only a certain size. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), as spokesman for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and more recently the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson), have made various proposals to cope with this problem. By and

February 1. 1968
Private Bills
large, the only answer given by the government has been that the ceiling on interest rates must be removed so that mortgage funds can be attracted into housebuilding. Who decides where investment funds are to go? Those funds go to the kind of companies with which we deal in these private bills. According to this bill, Excelsior Life Insurance Company is one company that is interested in using its funds for mortgage purposes.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It seems to me obvious that in dealing with these bills we have, in effect, been helping to aggravate the problems that the minister who reports to parliament on housing has had to face. On the admission of various spokesmen for the government from time to time, the problem has been that bodies such as Excelsior Life have been directing their mortgage funds, at their whim and fancy, into fields other than housing, because at a given point in time they seemed to find them more lucrative for investment purposes. I think Excelsior Life would be different from some of the other insurance companies, if it had not directed some of its mortgage funds into the erection of large office buildings, or possibly shopping centres which it is suggested from time to time are somewhat redundant in relation to the real need of the present day for adequate housing for our people.
If Excelsior Life feels that there is some hesitancy on our part to transform them into a federal company by means of a rather strange legislative enactment in order, so it is suggested, to make it a little simpler for the company to change their corporate status and thus remove this little inconvenience, then let the company take note of the fact that some of us are concerned about the right of bodies such as this to decide, in effect, whether or not the Canadian people are going to have sufficient housing.
I suggest that these are the kinds of issues that are involved in the bills with which we deal during this hour. The other day I was speaking on another bill, and I said there are some of us who are not prepared simply to agree that the convenience of any particular company, whether Excelsior Life or some other, should take precedence over action which, in our view, should be taken to meet the real interests of the Canadian people whom we in this parliament are elected to represent. So I have no hesitation in saying that this particular proposal is not one which we should pass lightly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on Bill S-8 that is before the house this evening, I would point out that the Senate banking and commerce committee heard evidence from the proponents of the bill which indicated that the purpose of the bill was to convert a provincially incorporated company into a federal corporation. This would not make too much difference to the operations of the company; in fact, it would only enhance its prestige in the community.
The evidence presented to the committee on banking and commerce revealed one fact that I should like to draw to the attention of this house. Under questioning it was revealed that the major share interest in the company is owned by a United States company, the Aetna Life Insurance Company. The major interest, about 70 per cent, was acquired in 1960. I am quite surprised that this acquisition was made at such late date. We all know from the pronouncement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that the government is endeavouring to gain control of the Canadian economy, eventually wresting it from the hands of foreign nations. Certainly this particular move at a date as late as 1960 is not in accordance with stated government policy.


An hon. Member:: Different government.


Melville Carlyle Germa: No matter whether it was a different government, I have stated on many occasions that I do not see much difference between the actions of those who form the government and those who form the opposition. The same trend appears to be continuing. Companies have changed hands time and time again over the last 100 years but the trend toward foreign ownership has gradually increased. Regardless of who was in power, I know of no time when this trend has reversed itself, enabling Canadians to gain control of their own economy.
In order to get to the root of the trouble, Mr. Speaker, and to understand the insurance business in Canada, I should like to delve into the reason insurance companies exist and to relate to the house what motivates people to buy insurance. It is surprising to me that in this affluent nation of ours there should be so much fear of economic disaster as a result of death that the people of Canada should see fit to put so much money into insurance. It is also a condemnation of past governments that
February 1, 1968

the people of this country live in such fear that they have to protect their dependants from economic disaster as a result of death.
Statistics show that the level of insurance has increased five times over the figure for 1950. It has increased twice as fast as incomes have increased. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because the people of Canada have not been provided with a sense of security by past administrations. Who are the people buying insurance, Mr. Speaker? You would think that the man with spare money in his pocket would invest in insurance. However, statistics show that this is not the case. They reveal that 50 per cent of life insurance policies are bought by people with $5,000 income or less; and 83 per cent of all life insurance in Canada is bought by people who earn less than $7,500. This shows that there is fear, that the small wage earner is in fear of not being able to provide for his family and he must take advantage of this type of protection.
Over 93 per cent of the Canadian people carry life insurance and 83 per cent of those who buy that insurance are in the under $7,500 a year income bracket. You can see that the little man carries the life insurance companies on his back. I think that the government should provide some sort of security for our people so that those who live in desperate fear will not need to go to private insurance companies to relieve their minds in order to sleep more soundly at night.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
One of my colleagues has said that the government sponsored insurance plan would have been twice as good had there not been interference by the private insurance companies, which realize what will happen to them if the government proceeds to expand plans like the Canada Pension Plan. The introduction of the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec pension plan reduced the group annuity payments to private insurance companies by 14 per cent. One piece of legislation transferred to the public sector 14 per cent of the premiums that had been paid to the private sector. Since in one year that amounts to about $1,300 million, one can see that a sizeable amount of money is involved, and that money can be directed by the government toward the best needs of the people.
A great public lobby is being conducted by various organizations which want to show that the foreign insurance companies operating in this country are good corporate citizens. "Good corporate citizen" is an expression that has been coined by insurance
Private Bills
associations, manufacturers associations and Chambers of Commerce, the inference being that a corporation is almost human, with flesh and bones. It is not. A corporation is made of bricks, bank books and bank accounts. It has no blood and bones. The terms "corporate responsibility", "good corporation citizenship" and others like them are cliches.
During housing debates in this house some hon. members have said that mortgage funds are in short supply in those areas that most need them. Since most of our mortgage funds are tied up in insurance companies, those companies have the power practically to direct this country and to tell it where the money is to be invested. We know that insurance companies do not invest in the mari-times, and that the maritimes need investment money perhaps more than other areas of Canada need it. We cannot control the insurance companies in their investing.
Foreign owned insurance companies have not complied with the wishes of the Prime Minister, and I support him in that regard, even though the government has not done much, actively, to reduce the number of foreign owned insurance companies operating in this country.
In 1966, speaking only of life insurance companies and excluding those companies which sell fire, automobile and health insurance as well as other types, there were in Canada 116 companies which sold life insurance. Forty one of those were Canadian and 75 were foreign. Since the 75 foreign owned companies probably do more business than the 41 Canadian companies, most of our premium dollars were controlled by foreigners.
It is strange to find British and United States companies operating in Canada while no United States company operates in the British Isles and no British company operates in the United States. I do not know what the saw-off was, but that is how things are. In Canada, life insurance is sold by United States, British, Netherlands, Swiss, German and French companies. We seem to have no control over who comes in and takes our premium dollar. In the United States they seem to have some control, and in the British Isles they have some control. We, on the other hand, let five or six different nations come in with their insurance companies, and we let those companies control about 60 per cent of our insurance business.
I was interested in a speech given by Mr. W. W. Foot, president and general manager of

February 1, 1968
Private Bills
Economical Mutual Insurance Company of Kitchener, as reported in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Foot, being critical of newspaper reporters and editors, is reported to have said: Reporters and editors are involved in a conspiracy with governments to promote nationalization of the general insurance business.
I do not know whether government members are conspiring with the newspaper people. That is for the government members to answer. Mr. Foot was critical not only of newspapermen but of his own colleagues as well:
The insurance industry... at one time extols the virtue of free enterprise competition and simultaneously takes measures to promote uniformity of operation.
He goes on to say:
Competition is cut-throat, unbridled, always vicious. Among ourselves, inwardly, we abhor competition. If a company, through its management, conforms to the uniform standards promulgated by the Establishment, agents are disposed to look upon it as a stick-in-the-mud, but when it adopts any form of deviation from the standards of the Establishment, everyone shouts "Stop rocking the boat".
This is a sort of admission that there is price fixing, that a cartel agreement to fix rates is in effect. He goes on to say:
Consider our practice of announcing rate increases in the press each year... By so doing we invite criticism; we create the image of a monopoly.
Usually we see a blanket increase in automobile or other insurance rates. Each company will charge an increase across the board, and yet each company will claim to be engaged in free enterprise. To my way of thinking, they are all monopoly oriented.
In order to grant members of this house more time to consider this bill, Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett):
That this bill be not now read the second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my friends in the N.D.P. have taken this opportunity to mount their campaign against the insurance industry. I think they have picked the wrong victim.

As has been admitted by many speakers of that party who always dominate these discussions, this is an old established Canadian company which simply seeks to clear up the confusion about its status in a way which the superintendent of insurance entirely approved in the hearings on a similar bill which were held before the miscellaneous private bills committee during the last session.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I will resist the temptation to answer the many arguments which were put forward by spokesmen for the New Democratic party and which pertained to this company-there were many others which had nothing to do with the company or with the bill now before us. I will simply suggest that there is much merit in the words of the superintendent of insurance when he appeared before the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills on February 14, 1967. I quote his statement as it appears on page 60 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 4.
I think by moving over and subjecting itself more firmly to federal jurisdiction and really cutting off all the provincial control and authority, it is clearing up an uncertainty and untidiness of its present position. If at some future date parliament decides that it will impose a more severe policy on foreign ownership, this company will be affected by it, but if we leave this company as it is, it will not be.
Hon. members opposite are defeating the purpose of their present campaign by picking on this particular bill as a convenient vehicle for the expression of their idea that there should be no new life insurance companies in Canada. This is not a new company: It is a well-established company which seems to be highly respected. The bill before the house is one which has been approved by all the government agencies concerned, and was recommended during the committee hearing last session by the superintendent of insurance. I appeal to the house to defeat the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) has moved that Bill S-8, an act respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months hence.
[And more than five members having risen.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since a vote has been demanded, pursuant to section 7 of standing
February 1, 1S68

order No. 6, this item of business stands over until 8 p.m.


Mr. McNulty:: Might we call it seven o'clock by unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.



AETNA CASUALTY COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 23,	1967 consideration of the
motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill No. C-112, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gilbert (p. 1746).
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: This bill is somewhat different in its nature from the one about which I was speaking a few minutes ago. This is an insurance company to insure virtually everything but life. In clause 6 we find a list of 26 types of coverage running the whole gamut of possible disasters including fire insurance, accident insurance, aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, boiler insurance, credit insurance, earthquake insurance, explosion insurance', falling aircraft insurance, forgery insurance, guarantee insurance, hail insurance, impact by vehicle insurance, plate glass insurance, sickness insurance, sprinkler leakage insurance, weather insurance and windstorm insurance. It is perhaps a good thing we have only 26 letters in the alphabet.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should be considering whether all these forms of insurance ought to be in private hands. As I was saying some time ago, there is a widespread demand for automobile insurance to be taken out of private hands because of the way in which private companies have handled this necessary feature of modern life. The same could be said of other areas in which insurance companies engage in business.
This bill proposes to incorporate a company which is, I believe, largely owned outside the country. I do not know whether that is very important, one way or another. I object to private individuals engaging in this sort of business, whether Canadian or not. There are some who become very agitated if they see that ventures of this kind are foreign-owned and I suppose that if we are to have people battening on the economy we should confine this privilege to Canadians.
My suggestion is that government and this parliament should subject such undertakings to careful scrutiny. Are we not moving into a
Private Bills
new era in which many of the things once carried out by private companies should be carried out by a public authority which would provide coverage at minimum cost?
There is no question but that the proliferation of companies in the insurance field must add to the cost of the services provided. Some people may question this, but I can assure them that it costs twice as much to hire two men as it does to hire one. The more insurance companies there are, the more people will have to make a living out of them. Consequently, the cost to the insured person is bound to continue to rise.
May I call it seven o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to section 7 of standing order 6 the house will now revert to private members business for the purpose of taking the vote which was postponed when private members business was being considered in the hour from six o'clock to seven o'clock in this sitting. Accordingly the question is as follows:
Mr. Stanbury, seconded by Mr. Haidasz, moved that Bill No. S-8, an act respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, be now read a second time. In amendment thereto Mr. Germa, seconded by Mr. Fawcett, moved that this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
[DOT]	(8:30 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the President of the Privy Council, who was unavoidably detained.


George Louis Chatterton: How would the hon. member have voted?


Mr. Hymmen:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: With whom was the hon. member paired?



PENITENTIARIES


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of moving item 58 on the order paper, the motion to revive the joint committee on penitentiaries. I understand the committee would be in a position to complete its report on prisons for women after one or two more meetings. I move therefore:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon: send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place: sit during sittings of the house; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable some of their Members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 1, 1968
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. J. R. Cartwright, M.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 1st February, at 9.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
February 1, 1963	COMMONS



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. When the committee rose at six o'clock subclause (h) was being considered, with an amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, when the house proceeded to private members business a little over two and a half hours ago I had been discussing some of the comments that had been made by members of the government on the position that our party has taken in the debate on this subclause, and on the position which members on the government side feel has been manifested by their own colleagues on the government benches. Needless to say there is a wide divergence of opinion between us on this side and the spokesmen to whom I refer on the other side with regard to the sincerity of the position purportedly taken by members on the government side. I was referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough in which he alleged and purported to suggest that there was division in my party with regard to subclause (h), and that by contrast there was remarkable unanimity and community of thought and purpose among the members on the government benches. I asked the hon. member for York-Scarborough, in a rhetorical way perhaps, just where he would place such members of his party as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the hon. member for York-Humber, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the hon. member for St. Paul's, and the hon. member for Spadina. Indeed I could go on naming hon. members. The five hon. members who I have named have hardly risen in this chamber to profess a deep philosophical and sincere commitment to the position of the government on this subclause. On the contrary, both inside and outside this chamber, some of them at least have given every evidence that they are as much opposed to the principle contained in subclause (h) as we in this party are. I must say that the difference of posture between these members and the members of our party has been very evident when the crunch came and the votes were taken, because many of them have
DEBATES	6275
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting absented themselves from the chamber so as not to have to participate in them. Those of us, however, who have taken the philosophical position which I and many others in my party have enunciated in the past week have been here to participate in these votes, and we have put our political money where our principles and our philosophical beliefs are. [DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Although the hon. member for York-Scarborough made a very urbane and intelligent speech and, in his usual poised political manner, exposed what he considered to be the essence of the argument, I suggest he was treading on dangerous ground. He cannot, in all conscience, support the argument that his party is united philosophically on this question and is the only party in this house to be so united when his colleagues have stood in this chamber during the last 72 hours and proposed amendments which would, in effect, substantially change the wording of the subclause in question. These amendments would have put the subclause in line with the philosophical expression to which we adhere in this house. I cannot explain the absence of those hon. members when votes on such amendments have taken place. This is something which the hon. member for York-Scarborough will have to settle with his own conscience.
Both the member for York-Scarborough and the hon. member for Verdun have made emotional appeals for some leadership, some direction from the head of this party in so far as this particular dispute is concerned. I suggest that this is a specious appeal to make in this chamber. There is absolutely no reason why members of this party or of any party in this house should not, when we are examining legislation of this kind clause by clause, speak out and state their individual convictions, and suggest their individual, independent points of view. The difference is, of course, that those of us who form this party have for a long time, certainly throughout our political lives, adhered to the tradition of independence and freedom which is part and parcel of the philosophy of Conservativism. Obviously members on the other side of the chamber are muzzled and the verbal expression certain members may wish to make of their convictions is denied them. There are handcuffs on those same members so far as any overt action is concerned.
We are at a stage in studying this legislation where every one of the 265 members
6276	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting should, in accordance with parliamentary tradition and devotion to the democratic political principles oi this country, stand and make his or her own, individual, independent views known on the parts of this legislation with which there is not agreement. There is absolutely no reason why there should be a crystallization of the position of this party on this legislation at this stage, either by the leader of this party or anyone acting on his behalf. When it comes to leadership, sir, I suggest that those on the other side of the chamber are treading on very dangerous ground. If they asked members on this side of the chamber if they felt the Liberal party had provided this country with the type of leadership Canadians have been crying for during the last four years, the answer would be a resounding no.
When members opposite talk about leadership, they should first put their own house in order. If there had been leadership provided on this broadcasting question, none of the explosions of the past two years in the field of broadcasting would have occurred. They have asked, Mr. Chairman, where we stand in this party on this particular philosophical question. I think it has been made clear where we stand, where the consensus in the party lies. Where members have different points of view, as I have attempted to suggest, it is incumbent upon them at this stage in the study of the legislation to express those different, independent points of view.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough has attended faithfully throughout the tedious hours of this debate and is familiar with the stand of this party on this philosophical question. He has been here throughout the week when the consensus on that philosophical point has developed and been articulated by this party. His answer lies in the Hansard record for the past four days.
I was mildly distressed, Mr. Chairman, by a reference the minister made, really outside the area of debate, which seemed to suggest to me that she felt such members as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and I have an axe to grind in this debate, since we have spent some time in the field of private broadcasting. I submit to the hon. lady that she has cast unfair aspersions upon both the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and me. I believe these allegations are unsupportable. If she checks my remarks during this debate, in fact if she goes back to my speech on first reading in this house and the meetings in the standing committee, she will see that I have tried to

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
emphasize the fact that I am not speaking in defence of, nor am I particularly interested in, the objectives or aims of private broadcasting any more than I am in the objectives and aims of publicly owned broadcasting. What I am talking about, the element in which I am interested-and I thought I had made it perfectly clear in my remarks-is the viewing and listening public. I am interested in the right of that public to have its objectives, its ambitions and interests preserved and paramount when any conflict arises between the two elements of our Canadian broadcasting system. There has been no attempt on my part, and I think the same can be said for the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, to expostulate the position of private broadcasters. Hers is not a true charge.
The position I have taken, and that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo certainly took in very articulate fashion in the standing committee, so far as this clause was concerned was that it was the public interest that should be paramount. It is the public interest which is the only justifiable criterion in this dispute. It is the public interest that is abrogated and violated in the wording of the subclause as it was originally constituted, and as it is now constituted in amended form.
Members on the government side may wonder why I took the particular voting position I took yesterday when we had an amendment which subsequently passed, but to which the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke moved a subamendment. The subamendment, if it had been carried, would have accomplished the same thing as my original amendment moved on Tuesday of this week. I did not support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, although I agreed with it 100 per cent, because my colleague, the member for Halifax, had an amendment which would have been completely neutralized by the passage of the subamendment. I did not vote on that issue. I neither voted for the subamendment nor against it. I voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax purely on the grounds that I had to be able to justify the remarks which I would make subsequently, and which I am making now. I felt I could not justify a further intervention in the debate if I voted for the amendment. I submit this argument to hon. members as my rationalization of my voting position of yesterday on the subamendment and the amendment before the committee.
February 1, 1968	COMMONS
I was exercised to a degree also, Mr. Chairman, by the remarks made earlier today in the chamber by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond. Before we even reached this aspect of the debate the hon. member said that the N.D.P. would be against any change in the amended paragraph (h). He said: "We"-meaning his party-"supported the original subclause and we supported the amendment moved yesterday by the member of the official opposition"-the hon. member for Halifax. He also said that he and his group would be against any further change in the clause.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
That hardly came as surprising news to any of us. Of course he would be against it, because the amended clause says precisely what the original clause said. That is our objection to the amendment. The hon. member was originally opposed to any change to paragraph (h). Therefore when an amendment is moved that is precisely the same, with the exception that it moves the emphasis further down in the sentence by changing the phrasing but does not change the essence of the paragraph, he would naturally be in favour of the amendment and opposed to any amendment that we might suggest to soften or modify the rigid position enunciated in the paragraph.
I also felt that his subsequent references to filibustering on the part of members of this house were unworthy of him. The hon. member has contributed greatly to the formulation of this broadcasting policy and the creation of the bill before us. I do not want to engage in argument with him over allegations that either he or I might make against each other's respective parties and positions, but considering the high level of intelligence and conscientiousness that he has brought to the debate I did feel that that remark was beneath him. There has been no filibustering by anyone in this party. We are concerned about the serious oversight in the wording of this legislation which compromises the most important element in Canadian society-the public interest.
If some of us missed things in the early examination of this legislation, then we are sorry and apologize. It is not always possible to come quickly to a satisfactory understanding of every clause in every piece of legislation with which we in this chamber are confronted. Sometimes re-examination and a period of contemplation is required before one comes to, as it were, the moment of 27053-396j
DEBATES	6277
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting truth in respect to a particular phrase or provision. Only then is the weakness or strength of that particular part of the legislation properly focused before us. That is what may have happened as far as some members on this side of the chamber are concerned.
In my own heart and conscience I can fully justify and defend the position that I have taken in this debate. In no way should the stand I have taken be construed as a filibuster. I have made a sincere attempt to change a piece of legislation in such a way as to protect the most important part of Canadian society-the Canadian interest. I have made a sincere attempt to soften and to modify wording which to me smacks of stateism, authoritarianism, and which to say the least is discriminatory. It is not a question of its being discriminatory in respect of private broadcasters but of its being discriminatory in respect of, if you like, private enterprise, discriminatory in respect of the independent, free-thinking, free-moving Canadian.
I cannot understand why the minister has been so intractable on this point. I was dismayed, to say the least, when the amendment I moved earlier this afternoon failed to find favour with the minister. I felt it satisfied both philosophical positions in this debate without watering down the position of the government. It satisfied the concern on this side of the chamber for free enterprise and the public interest and in no way represented a defeat, moral or otherwise, for anyone participating in this debate.
Disappointed as I was, even more than that I was amazed that the minister found the wording of my amendment so unacceptable. For my own part I find the wording of the paragraph as it now stands completely repugnant from a philosophical point of view. I see no justification whatever for it and I certainly support the amendment that has been moved at this point in the debate by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona.
I would be interested to hear the minister or some of her colleagues defend the clause as it now stands and explain why the term "public interest" has throughout the debate seemed to be so reprehensible to the government. It was through the efforts of this party that this term was put into that particular paragraph. The original paragraph made no reference to it. However, the clause is not yet satisfactory to us, even though that term is in the paragraph. To put it there we have had an uphill struggle against ministerial intransigence.
6278	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Why is the minister so loath to write into the legislation something that is in the best traditions of Canadian democracy and which should be in the best traditions of the Liberal party, the protection and primacy of the public interest? One is quickly persuaded to come to the conclusion, as did the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings two nights ago in this chamber, that this debate has separated the champions of individualism and independence from that sparkless, faceless army of people who would see this country complete its alarming slide into state-ism, socialism and total welfare-ism.
From that, one is logically forced to the conclusion that we are one of the few countries that seems to be stubbornly and unwisely bucking a political and philosophical trend in the world. Countries like Denmark are getting away from the totally socialistic, authoritarian concept of government, while countries that still stick with it, such as Great Britain, are suffering the slings and arrows of the most outrageous social, political and economic fortunes.
This lesson is being written in every corner of the western world, yet this country seems to go on stubbornly resisting and ignoring it, plunging headlong down the path to welfare-ism, socialism and authoritarian control, sapping the society in which we live of all its ambition and robbing it of all its dreams.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made the point most eloquently two days ago in his charge to the members on the government benches with respect to the choice facing them and the test ahead of them, as they go into their leadership convention. They must ask themselves, under whom will their party live? The tragedy, of course, is that the Canadian people are involved in this exercise. If it were a party choosing a leader for itself with no one else involved, it would be different. But here they are carrying out their exercise for the whole Canadian public, and what they do will affect the government of this country. In effect, they are choosing the direction that the government and the country will take. That is where the tragedy lies.
Before closing and yielding the floor, I hope, to my colleague from Edmonton-Strath-cona, who intends to speak further on his amendment, I ask again, as I have asked on some five prior occasions in this debate, what are the objectives of the national broadcasting service? If I thought that the objectives

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
were clearly enunciated and did not encroach on the individual rights of individual, free Canadians, did not encroach on the civil liberties of Canadian men and women, I might subscribe, I dare say, to the clause as it originally stood or in its amended form.
But I am not satisfied that the objectives of the national broadcasting service have been properly defined in this bill and I appeal once again to the minister, in the interests of liberalism, socialism, conservatism and every other ism in the spectrum of Canadian politics, in the interests of Canada and the Canadian tradition of freedom and enterprise, to yield on this one point, to satisfy a great many people inside and outside the broadcasting industry who, I can assure her, are concerned with the apparent authoritarianism of amended subclause (h) and with the apparent, arbitrary and permanent conclusion that broadcasting authorities are charged to reach where conflicts in broadcasting arise in future between the public and private sectors of the industry-that is, between the national broadcasting service and the private part of the system.
The subclause means that a decision has been reached that will guide the authorities for all time. The scales are to be weighted and the jury shall be directed to find in favour of the national broadcasting service. The case of the private individual and of the public, and after all it is the public that is most concerned in this matter, is compromised, foreshortened and doomed to failure before the litigation has begun.
I conclude by reiterating my support for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, by hoping that it will be accepted by the minister and by hoping that, once this matter is resolved, the committee of the whole will be able to move expeditiously through the remaining clauses of the bill.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, at the invitation of the hon. members for York-Scarbor-ough and Verdun, I am on my feet again in connection with the amendment I moved and in connection with a problem contained in this bill. The bill seeks to say that where there is any possibility of conflict between private and public sectors of broadcasting, the interests of the public sector shall prevail.
Certainly I owe the senior member for Halifax an explanation about what happened this afternoon. While some may ask the question, facetiously perhaps, as to where this
February 1, 1938

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
party stands, I think the answer is simple. It may look as if someone in our party moved an amendment and as if a majority of our party do not support it; but the situation is simple. Members of our party, and I think I can speak authoritatively about this, felt that clause (h) was so worded that it could be interpreted as being overwhelmingly in favour of the national broadcasting service, where there is any possibility of conflict. On reading the bill, it became apparent that if the interest of the national broadcasting service in any matter were but one per cent and the interest of private broadcasters were 99 per cent, a decision would have to be rendered in favour of the national broadcasting service. I do not think anybody on the broadcasting committee intended to go that far, and I do not think anyone in the house would wish to see that situation prevail.
I thought originally that the situation contemplated in the clause referred to equal interests. I thought that where there would be difficulty about how to resolve a question, the interest of the national broadcasting system would prevail. Such was our concern with this matter, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Halifax, acting on behalf of our party, attempted to negotiate with the government to try to ameliorate the effects of this clause. I think it is generally agreed that when all other factors are equal, the balance of the scales should be tipped in favour of the national system. But this clause went too far, and the object of the hon. member was to try to obtain agreement to amendments that would ameliorate that provision and let us get on with the business of the house.
The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, was that the wording was arrived at hastily round about noon. The minister took a look at it, said she would accept it, and we went back to the house without anybody having had a chance to study the amendment. When it was read to us it revealed words which said that the matter shall be resolved in the public interest, and so on, and the thought came to me that that was not what was in mind. The language of the subclause would be that in case of conflict the matter would be resolved in the public interest; but I submit that the suggestion is that when there is no conflict, a decision in favour of the national broadcasting service is not in the public interest. In other words, we seem to be directing someone to do something that is not in the public interest.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There was no time for consultation and we never saw the amendment until just before it was proposed in the house. The first objection to it was taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who said he had reservations and wanted to think about it. Obviously, he was somewhat dubious about the wording. He was certainly in full accord with the general object of trying to soften the effect of the original wording. It was I who made an objection and pointed out where the difficulty lay, namely that we were failing in our duty to regulate in the public interest because we were asking an authority to do something without regard for the public interest.
Members of our party looked at the wording of the amendment this afternoon and agreed that it was most unfortunate. It was my hope that by drawing attention to this situation, a poor choice of words in an amendment which had been drafted hastily in an honest endeavour by the minister to meet the feeling by hon. members on this side of the house as well as, I believe, on her own side of the house, the minister would become aware of what had happened and would be agreeable to finding another form of words which would meet the case. There had been no time for a close study of the amendment. There was no time to talk it over. By the time we were able to study its effects the motion had been moved. I had hoped that the minister, looking again at the amendment with cool judgment, would have taken a reasonable attitude and made sure that the amendment would, in fact, soften the effect of the subclause under discussion.
When the vote was called I had expected that the amendment would be turned down and that another amendment would then be introduced which would express more clearly the result which we on this side wish to achieve. In the event, the hon. member for Halifax having moved his motion and having made an agreement with the minister, obviously could not vote against his own motion, while on the other side of the house the minister's supporters merely followed the minister. I thought it strange that there should be such overwhelming support for the minister in the committee on this occasion, and some hon. members may wonder whether it is always to the advantage of this house that ministers are so often able to get such wholehearted support behind them in connection with just one point in the legislation being
6280	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting considered. Obviously hon. members opposite felt that the minister having made a commitment, they should help her keep it. This is commendable; but the essence of the situation is that the wording really did not give effect to what either the minister or the hon. member for Halifax had hoped to achieve. So it became a matter of trying to amend the wording in such a way as to bring it into conformity with the agreement which has been reached-not to abrogate that agreement or reach some other agreement.
If there should be some wonderment on the other side of the house as to where the opposition stands, perhaps I might say this in explanation: Unlike the clause itself, which has been before us for a considerable time, the amendment was only moved this afternoon and hon. members, who did not have the actual wording before them, were unable to consider its implications. They could only listen to what was said and had only a few minutes in which to make up their minds. Some of us obviously felt that if we did not support the hon. member for Halifax we were going back on the agreement to some extent. However, as I have explained, we felt in the end that the amendment did not really give effect to the agreement which had been reached and that the matter should therefore be reconsidered in order that a properly worded amendment could be moved. While I am not reflecting on the action of the committee in accepting the amendment which was put forward, I would point out that we do have an opportunity now to determine whether the wording which the committee found acceptable is, in fact, as satisfactory as the wording which I proposed earlier today. As members of parliament it is our duty to decide whether the national broadcasting system should take precedence over the private broadcasting system. I think it is also our duty to give some indication to the Board of Broadcast Governors as to the extent of such a preference.
In subclause (h) as originally worded, the government took a very clear stand. It said that should a conflict arise between the C.B.C. and private interests, even though the C.B.C. might have only a minor interest at stake as opposed to a major interest on the part of private enterprise, the conflict must be settled in favour of the national broadcasting service. There is considerable doubt in the minds of many hon. members as to whether they really wish to go as far as this. Some, I suppose, would argue against my amendment, which

DEBATES	February 1, 1968
says that all other factors being equal the national broadcasting system shall prevail-in other words that there should be a slight bias in favour of a national system. In cases where there is only a minor interest on the part of the C.B.C. and a major interest on the part of the private network we obviously do not want a subclause here which says that the interest of the C.B.C. must prevail. This is what we object to, and this is why the hon. member for Halifax went to the minister in an effort to have that provision ameliorated.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think the fact that the minister would agree to an amendment proves that there was agreement that the original wording went just a little too far. If I am right in that, Mr. Chairman, and I believe the logic is sound, then it was a case of finding wording that would ameliorate this a little, and not violate the principle that the minister wanted to have in the bill, the pre-eminence of the C.B.C.
When the minister agreed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax, it showed that there was agreement to soften the clause a little bit, but the mechanics of carrying out that agreement were just a little faulty. I feel that the result has left this committee in a most embarrassing position. I am hoping that we will be able to take up this clause tomorrow, because perhaps over night hon. members will have time to think about it.
It is not my purpose to make this a partisan debate. Certainly the division on the amendment was not partisan. Some Tories supported it; some voted against it. I voted against it simply because of the wording and not because of the intent. I am sure many of my colleagues did the same. My plea tonight to the committee is that it not abrogate the intent of what was done, but to suggest that by this wording we have not done what we thought we would. We should look at it a little longer and see if my amendment does not more closely carry out the wishes we thought we had expressed.
I have no doubt that if we leave the clause as amended yesterday, when it goes to the Senate that body will say, "We will amend this clause so that it does not offend against the interests of parliament, and so that it will say that the public interest must be the prime consideration for everything we do." In effect, this amendment says that conflict "shall be resolved in the public interest, but..." In this way we take away from what is our absolute duty.
February 1, 1968	COMMONS
To those hon. members who have asked where our party stands, I reply that the apparent difference of opinion is only in the wording, and that in fact on both sides of the house there was general agreement on what we were trying to do, but that there was not full understanding of what the words in the amendment actually did.
As I say, I was surprised that the minister did not accede to the request to study the matter for a while, to see if we could refine the words in the amendment a little more. I know that a couple of members on the other side of the chamber have suggested amendments similar to the one now before the committee. In fact the amendment that I have moved is almost identical in meaning to the wish expressed in speeches made by a couple of Liberal members yesterday, and I do not think those members were speaking just for themselves.
As I say, the fact that the minister accepted an amendment to the clause indicated a certain amount of agreement to ameliorate to some extent the harshness of the original clause. My amendment suggests that, all other factors being equal, then pre-eminence is given to the C.B.C., and I suggest there is nothing in the attitude shown by members, no matter which way they voted on the last amendment, which would tie their hands so that they could not be free to vote on this one.
The original wording of the clause gave overwhelming pre-eminence to the C.B.C., and everybody was agreed that that went a little too far. It may be that somebody will devise a formula to give a balance of proportion, where the factors have to be two to one or three to one before this clause comes into effect. That will be rather hard to draft and it is difficult to imagine how we can reach agreement.
In reply to members who asked this afternoon where our party stood, I say that the public has a right to know where a party stands. I am suggesting that my amendment simply sets out that we want a balance of proportion, and that every member who votes in favour of it will indicate that generally, with all factors being equal, the pre-eminence will be given in favour of the C.B.C. My amendment could be made stronger, but as it stands it indicates that a conflict of interest shall be resolved in the national interest of the C.B.C. only where things are about 50/50.
I hope the committee will support my amendment on those grounds.
DEBATES	6281
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Mr, Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak again on the hon. member's amendment because I think it outlines a basic political philosophy, one with which the committee should be very deeply concerned. I find it hard to imagine the reason why members on the government side are reluctant to resolve any issue in the public interest. Most of the aspects of government and of the judiciary have been designed to be resolved in the public interest. Everything we have in the political sense in this country, the whole democratic process, is designed in such a way that we can confidently expect that the public interest will be served.
It is only occasionally that a clause in a bill such as this, which endangers one of our freedoms, comes before us. I speak of the freedom to dispense information. If a similar proposal were made with regard to other types of organizations that dispense information, such as newspapers, suggesting that if there were a quarrel between newspapers and a government publication then it must be resolved in favour of the government publication, I think there would be a great hue and cry about it.
It is difficult to fathom the reasoning of government supporters against accepting an amendment which gives us a continuation of a certain freedom, but I am quite prepared to accept the fact that there are certain other members of the house willing to have the government take over all aspects of our lives as individuals, and run them according to a computer or to a bureaucratic set-up. I have been asked, "Where are they". Again I say, as I did this afternoon, that these are the people to the left of me geographically and also politically. I do not think that a small vociferous minority should be listened to too intently in this house.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I found it interesting to read some of the evidence given before the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts at the time when the witnesses who appeared before that committee were the director general of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the director general on the Independent Television Authority in the United Kingdom. When Sir Hugh Greene, K.C.M.G., O.B.E., appeared before the committee he was questioned by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He was subjected to some sensible and well put questions. I believe the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was able to draw from these two gentlemen, Sir Hugh
February 1, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Greene and Sir Robert Fraser, a good deal of interesting information about broadcasting in Great Britain.
I found some of the comments which were made by these two gentlemen to be quite enlightening. I am not particularly familiar with the situation in Great Britain. It seemed to me, however, that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was asking Sir Hugh Greene about the effect that the introduction of independent television stations in Great Britain had on broadcasting. I found Sir Hugh Greene's reply to be rather interesting. This appears at page 1831 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 38 of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, where Sir Hugh Greene said this:
Some people would say that our standard of programs had declined as a result of competition; some people would say that the standard of our programs had improved because of competition. Both of these statements, I think, cannot be true, but they are constantly being made almost in the same breath. Of course, programs will develop over the years whether they are in competition or not, with greater professionalism and expertise.
We tried to answer this question to the best of our ability at the time of the Pilkington committee, searching our consciences. We came to the conclusion that in certain areas of programming, basically news and light entertainment, probably we had benefited from competition, and that the B.B.C. programs were better for it. We came to the conclusion that in other areas of programming it had probably made no difference.
This bears out a point I was attempting to make this afternoon; that is, that the private sector in Canada need not take a back seat to the C.B.C. or to any other organization in respect of the programming service it is performing in this country. So, the question of competition really does not enter into the matter under discussion at the present time. We are not talking about competition; we are not talking about programming in this context. We are talking about an amendment which, in the opinion of my colleagues, if allowed to go through will open the door to violation of one of our historic rights.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few minutes left. If the hon. members have points of view which they should like to express, they will have the opportunity to do so after I sit down.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The hon. member will not permit a question.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon.
member for Calgary South has the floor at the moment.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Chairman, I will permit a question from the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


Robert William Prittie: I had one first.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. member whether the amendment which he has been damning in such severe terms is the one which was introduced by his colleague the hon. member for Halifax.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona covered this point very well in the speech he made next preceding mine. I should like the hon. member for York-Scarborough to read that speech. Unfortunately he was not in the house at the time.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I heard it.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I am sure I could not explain the point better than the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona did.


Robert William Prittie: Will the hon. member permit my question?


Harold Raymond Ballard: I will take a question from the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Robert William Prittie: The hon. member for Calgary South has been referring to the British system and the private companies in Great Britain. I wonder whether he realizes that the program companies in Britain have none of the inalienable rights in respect of private property. They use transmission facilities owned by a public authority and obtain permission for a period of years to produce programs. This authority can be taken away, as indeed was the case in respect of Lord Thomson. They have no built-in rights so far as television is concerned.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I must concede the point to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond when it comes to matters of broadcasting both in Canada and Great Britain, because he has been a conscientious member of the parliamentary committee which has been studying this subject. While I appreciate his knowledge on the subject, I must say that in Great Britain there are separate authorities
February 1, 1968

governing the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television agency. This situation did not develop by accident; it was a deliberate policy decision, as I understand it, that these two bodies should be developed and governed by separate agencies. As a matter of fact, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was questioning Sir Robert Fraser, the director of the Independent Television Authority, concerning the overseeing of the television authorities in Great Britain, Sir Robert, as reported at page 1855 of proceedings No. 38 of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, stated as follows:
Every free country has had to set up an agency of the state to choose who shall be allowed in and who shall not. This is what the F.C.C. is doing most of the time.
The F.C.C., of course, is the Federal Communications Commission in the United States. Sir Robert Fraser continues:
This cannot be avoided because this is an essential part of the system. The real question it seems to me is whether, given that you have to call into existence an agency of the state to supervise the private sector, you wish it then to have anything to do whatever with the supervision of the public sector. Now the United Kingdom's answer to this is: Let it have nothing whatever to do with the supervision of the public sector. You have already a body called the board of governors of the B.B.C. who were appointed to do that very thing, and either they can do it, in which case they ought to be left to do it, or they cannot do it, in which case they should be changed.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I think Sir Robert was inferring that you should have in any country or state a regulatory body to govern broadcasting. In the statement I have just read it is obvious that Sir Robert recognizes that in respect of broadcasting there should be separate governing bodies. I think that we in Canada can afford one governing body covering the public and private sectors of broadcasting, provided the private sector can expect the same or equal treatment as that afforded to the public sector. To make flesh of one and fowl of the other is absolutely undemocratic and unacceptable. The hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona is really saying that we are prepared to vote for a body that will have the responsibility of governing broadcasting in this country, provided the public and private sectors are governed, supervised, controlled and regulated in identical fashion.
There is no justification for saying that the private sector of this industry should be regulated in one manner and that sector has to follow the pattern set by the public sector. I
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting think that the concept behind this amendment has nothing to do with broadcasting but has something to do with the preservation of the rights under which all members of the house operate. We have grown to expect these rights, we have fought for them and we will continue fighting for them. This is what we are doing now; we are fighting to preserve the rights to which we are accustomed and to which we are entitled.
It would be easy, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to rise and say, without lessening her political stature in this country-in fact, she would probably increase her political stature if she did this-that by all means the regulatory authority over broadcasting in this country must resolve all problems on the basis of public interest, and for no other reason. If the minister would do that, a continuation of this debate would be unnecessary. This is such a small thing to ask of the minister, but it is so important that we are prepared to fight for it right down to the wire. Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It will be several minutes before the proceedings are interrupted, and there is no necessity to call it ten o'clock at this time.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Then, Mr. Chairman, the information I received is incorrect. I understood that we would be invited to the other place at a quarter to ten. It appears that we still have several minutes to go, but I am afraid I have run out of steam. Therefore, I will call it ten o'clock and let Your Honour call the question.


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


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How is your steam?


James Ernest Pascoe: -my colleagues on this side of the house have presented our arguments in respect of improvements to certain clauses of this bill. They have been presented so clearly and forcibly that so far I have not taken part in the debate. However, I feel impelled to speak briefly tonight, for two particular reasons. The first is that I have been asked in letters I have received in the last day or so to put the views of my constituents on the record of the house. I assure the minister that the public-I know this is the case as far as the people in my constituency are concerned
6284	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting -have been reading the reports of this debate very carefully. The feelings of the public are fairly high in this regard.
My second reason for speaking tonight is this. The government is taking action by the guillotine method to impose closure on our speaking. This was announced today. As I say, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of public interest in the debate on clause 2. As the minister has stated several times, this clause is the heart of Bill C-163. According to the letters I have received, there is a great deal of interest in the private sector of broadcasting. As I have already said, I have received many letters on this question, and I wish to put part of one of them on the record.
I shall not put them all on record, but I quote just this one letter to indicate how much interest there is in maintaining the private sector of broadcasting on the same footing as that enjoyed by the C.B.C. This is what my colleagues have been fighting for, and in this connection I would refer particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
I shall not read all the letters I have received in this connection because they are not relevant to this stage of the debate; many of them refer to speeches made earlier in committee regarding programs broadcast by the C.B.C. which have offended the sensibilities of a great many viewers. However, I wish to quote from a letter received from a lady in my constituency. This lady says that she is disgusted with some of the programs broadcast over the C.B.C. network. She says:
These sort of programs are not fit to come into our living rooms. In fact, in ours they are turned off.
The next portion of this letter is the one to which I draw particular attention, and I am sorry the minister is not in the chamber to hear it. This lady says:
In fact, if we only had the C.B.C. to watch, we would not have a television.
That is what this constituent writes. She thinks there is a great need to give the private sector a square shake, as we say in western Canada, with regard to broadcasting. I do not have to draw to the attention of hon. members on the other side of the chamber how many of them disagree with what the minister herself has said. The minister said- it was said as part of a joke, but she admitted it-that she, and I take it that this also applies to the government, is tilted toward the C.B.C. In order to reinforce my argument with regard to opposition from the minister's
[Mr. Pascoe.l
DEBATES	February 1, 1968
own members in this respect, I would put on record one or two statements from members on that side of the house which certainly indicate that they are not in favour of the minister's acknowledgement that she is tilted, and through her the government, toward the C.B.C.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I should like to quote a statement made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, which reads as follows:
My reason for saying that is that the clause as it stands says in effect that the C.B.C. will always have its way and that the will of the C.B.C. will always prevail.
In another part of his speech the hon. member said:
I suggest that under the present wording-
The wording had been changed slightly since the hon. member spoke but it had the same effect as the amendment which was approved last night.
-the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the national broadcasting service.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for St. Paul's. In my view he also took exception to the minister's very evident bias in favour of the C.B.C. when he said:
I urge the minister to reconsider the possibility of moving a very simple amendment to clarify, first, the meaning of the word "objectives" and, second, to make it entirely clear that there is to be no automatic resolution of any conflict in favour of the state-owned system but rather that the public interest will be the governing factor.
That is what hon. members on the government side of the house had to say on this bill, and that is exactly what the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the amendment now before us proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is attempting to do to improve the wording of the bill. The bill as it stands suggests that private broadcasting is not on an equal footing with public broadcasting.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. I am informed that a messenger from the other place is now on his way to the house. Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
February 1, 1968	COMMONS



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill No. S-22, an act to prohibit the sale and advertising of hazardous substances, to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code, to which the concurrence of the house is desired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Colonel A. Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to incorporate Vawn Pipe Lines Ltd.
An Act to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Ltd.
An Act respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
An Act respecting Divorce.

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

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Postmaster General is present and in his place. I welcome this opportunity to deal with what is essentially a grievance that is felt by a majority of the residents of the village of Libau, Manitoba. Unfortunately there is insufficient time to detail with precision the sequence of events and the timing that lay behind the decision of the Postmaster General to transfer the post office and postmastership at Libau last November, but the Postmaster General is
DEBATES	6285
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion well aware that his course of action was found to be very unsatisfactory. The people there took the opportunity to petition him not once but on two occasions, asking him to give consideration to their complaints, their allegations and their request to make an order to retransfer the post office and postmastership back to its location prior to last November. The complaint that the people make is that the minister did not act fairly in that not enough time was given between the issuance of the order of transfer and the date when the actual transfer was to take effect. In fact, I calculate that only four working days were allowed to elapse between notice of transfer and the actual transfer itself.
I must say that the minister was good enough to request or to order a delay in this transfer, during which time-a period of three or four weeks-he considered the request of the residents of this district. However, I and the people of Libau are not satisfied that he was able to justify or sufficiently explain why it was necessary to make this transfer.
The minister has told them in letters, and has told me in the house, that the main reason this transfer was made was that the store in which this post office was located had in recent years changed hands too frequently, and that therefore there was an element of instability. According to the first news reports that carried this announcement, the minister stated that the store in which the post office was located had changed hands three times in four years. This was later amended to three times in five years. I can state with complete accuracy that it changed hands three times in 19 years.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the people of Libau cannot understand why it was found necessary to transfer the post office, in view of the fact that the postmaster who held the position prior to last November had held it for a period of four months or so and his work was found to be satisfactory. In fact I have a letter showing that the regional director of postal services in Winnipeg found the performance of the former postmaster to be quite satisfactory.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In light of that it is difficult to understand why the minister did as he did. When the overwhelming majority of the people make a request, and when what they request will not complicate the minister's job, I submit that that request ought to be acceded to. What was
February 1, 1968
6286	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion requested would not have affected national policy and I fail to understand why it was not granted.
The people have petitioned twice for the return of the post office. Had the minister granted that request, would that have affected the operation of his department and the rest of the country? Would it have increased the expenditure of public funds? The answer is that it would not. There was therefore no substantial reason for the minister's refusal.
The request was made and the petition was signed by 75 per cent of the adult residents of the district. In one of his recent letters the minister challenges the accuracy of that figure and suggests that the percentage is more like 67 per cent. But 67 per cent in favour indicates an overwhelming majority. While perhaps I should not challenge the minister's figure, I do so, because the official list of postal subscribers is wrong. Since that list was compiled a number of residents have died, some have moved away-the sort of thing one can expect normally-so that the proportion of residents who signed the petition is, I insist, 75 per cent. I do not make too much of this, except to say that the majority of the people made a simple request and he has denied that request, saying that he has statutory authority for his course of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I conclude with one sentence? I do not question the minister's statutory authority; I only hope that he might exercise it less drastically and as much as possible keep in mind the wishes of the people.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have much time to answer, but I shall try to be as brief as possible.
First of all, there is some misunderstanding about the word "transfer". A post office in that class is not transferred, any more than a postmaster is transferred. The appointee must provide the premises himself. This does not mean, therefore, that when a postmaster resigns, either because he sells his business or for some other reason, the post office must remain in the same premises. What we do is that we appoint a new local postmaster who must provide his own premises.
The business has been sold three times since 1962. The hon. member knows that did not cost the department anything but each


time the postmaster resigns or is transferred, the civil servants of the department must go to the post office and take an inventory of the stamps, money orders, etc. and see that everything is in order. This, of course, entails new expenses.
Because the new owner of the business, Mr. Gilson, was never appointed postmaster, the last postmaster, Mr. Greening, was appointed on a temporary basis, until such time as a permanent one is appointed. So, in this case, two people filled out applications, that is Messrs. Greening and Gilson. Of the two candidates, we have decided, with the assistance of the district manager in Winnipeg, that Mr. Greening was better qualified to fill the post. So I have agreed to make this appointment.
Now, even if a petition has been signed by many users of the mail, I must say that, today, 128 families out of 179 get their mail through the Libau post office. In all justice, Mr. Speaker, I surely cannot fire a postmaster who does his work adequately. I have never done that since I am Postmaster General and I will not do it because, in all justice, I think we should respect the persons on the job.
It may be that there was a misunderstanding when the question of transfer was brought up since, as I said earlier, the postmaster who was there had been hired only on a temporary basis, because the resignation of the one who sold the store had been received too late to appoint his successor.



PUBLIC WORKS-VANCOUVER-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: welcome this opportunity to enlarge upon the question I put, or endeavoured to put, to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) on January 26 in connection with federal construction in the city of Vancouver. Exceeding urgency attaches to this situation.
The shipbuilding industry is already facing a serious situation. One yard in Victoria is closed. Employment in the shipyard in Vancouver is down from 1,500 workers to fewer than 300. More than 60 per cent of the labour force dependant on this industry is unemployed and, according to the newspapers, in the course of only two days there were 500 inquiries by skilled workmen making application to go to the United States. This is the situation as it concerns shipbuilding.
We do not want to see a repetition of this situation in the general construction industry.
February 1, 1968

On January 15 I made a survey of the carpenters locals in Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria and Nanaimo. I discovered that 22 per cent of the construction carpenters belonging to those four locals were unemployed. Unemployment among other construction workers such as electricians, plumbers, fitters and steel workers was similarly high.
Major construction work which has maintained employment during the past two years is coming to an end. No more pulp or paper mills are to be built in British Columbia in the foreseeable future. All the heavy power dam construction work on the Peace river and the Columbia river is approaching completion and no further major work is in sight for the next three years.
It is against this background, and bearing in mind the somewhat dismal outlook for the next two or three years, that I am asking the Minister of Public Works and the government whether they will not give favourable consideration to advancing the plan for the construction of the federal building to be built at the foot of Granville street. I know the government plans call for a start in 1970-71 on the first phase, 1973-74 on the second stage, and two or three years later on the third stage. In view of the factual situation and the unfortunate probable future for construction workers in Vancouver I just make the simple, and I think logical request that this one major federal project in Vancouver be planned and phased for an earlier start than 1970-71.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that this important project requires detailed negotiations which, if rushed through, cannot be carried out successfully. In addition, we must recognize that whether the building will be built by the Department of Public Works on the site now owned by the crown, or whether it will be built in some other way, the preparation of the plans and specifications will involve a great deal of work. These are the considerations that lead almost inevitably to the conclusion that the most realistic estimate that can be made at this time is that the construction phase of the work cannot be started within the next year or two.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the hon. member's figures with regard to the unemployment situation. I will simply assume
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that his figures are entirely accurate. Nevertheless, given the requirements for development of an arrangement and the development of plans and specifications, there seems to be no way in which this project can be moved ahead more rapidly.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that it would be anything like the kind of solution to the employment problem that the hon. member suggests; but even if it were, I submit it would be almost totally impossible to put the construction into motion with anything like the kind of haste that he seems to have in mind.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES LOSING JOBS THROUGH UNIFICATION

Robert Jardine McCleave: On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, unimpeded by my colleagues in my party. This is the day on which unification takes effect in the armed forces. Earlier today I presented the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) with a question about the effect unification would have on the employment of prevailing rate people with the armed forces, and about what would happen to those who were laid off. It was a very short question. I hope my speech tonight will be short, and that the minister will be able to make his speech as long as he wishes so that the text of it can be sent forth to those people whose jobs may be in jeopardy.
I had a letter today from a particular branch of the armed forces in my area, concerning a number of men. One of them, an ex-serviceman, has served for 13 years, and another ex-serviceman has served for 16 years. There are three other people mentioned, one an ex-serviceman who has served for one and a half years, and two other prevailing rate employees without service, but who have served in one case for 15 years and in the other for two years.
Perhaps it is unfair to repeat gossip in this or any other place, but I have heard much gossip that there may be a rather drastic reduction in the complement of those who are classed as prevailing rate employees. Admittedly I have not been able to give the minister all the figures that have beset me, but I hope that in a general way he could give an indication to hon. members, which in turn they could send to prevailing rate employees, of what the future holds for them.
Whether a person has served two years or 13 years with a particular department, there
February 1. 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion still remains the matter of whether he is going to be able to take home his very essential bread and butter. I am not going to fire a political salvo on this matter. I simply ask the minister what plans he and his department have in the light of unification, so that we can send that information out to those who write us.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) for the conversation we had this afternoon on a particular subject. We are very sorry, we must admit, that there will be some reduction in the civilian staff as a result of our continuing efforts to bring about further improvements in the employment of our manpower resources within the department. Like everybody else, we face budget constraints. We are also streamlining our operation. We believe this is commendable.
It is regrettable that here and there some people, especially the casual workers, are
affected. I must point out, however, that we are making every effort to find suitable positions for those persons who have been or will be affected by the reorganization. In addition to our own internal efforts the officials of my department have written to the Department of Manpower and Immigration as well as the public service commission to solicit the collective efforts of the entire manpower organization in an effort to place the affected employees in other positions.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that all government departments are sparing no effort in their desire to assist these employees. I might also add that we give as much notice as is possible. In the case of the people the hon. member mentioned I believe three months notice was given. We are assisting in every way we can in order to help find suitable replacement employment for these people who eventually will lose or have lost their employment.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, February 2, 1968