1968-02-02

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on labour and employment, presented to the house on Tuesday, January 30, 1968, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. Greene (for Mr. MacEachen) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-22 (from the Senate), 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.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him if he can give us any further information in connection with the dollar, any reassuring statement, in view of the measures taken some time ago.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been reasonably well satisfied with the effect of the measures that have been taken. I have every confidence in the stability of the Canadian dollar.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to direct a question to the right
hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the President of the Treasury Board to the effect that opposition parties are playing politics with housing because they refuse to agree to a total restriction on debate on a measure without having had the opportunity of seeing it, I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is now the policy of the government that before legislation is brought in members of this house are to be asked to agree to a total restriction on debate before they have seen the legislation.
Right Kon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, Mr. Speaker, that policy has never been suggested by any member of the government.


Mr. Starr:: Just recently, by the minister for housing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister, then, in view of the remarks in respect of this housing legislation, will he undertake to see that this legislation is introduced so members can see it? Then perhaps there will be no great difficulty in getting general agreement to restrict debate.


Mr. Pearson:: I shall be glad to look into this to see that it is done.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should
like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the correspondence between him and the premier of Nova Scotia which he tabled the other day, and which suggested the federal government is ready to give Nova Scotia a loan of only some $2 million. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether this means the federal government has decided not to make any loan at all or to assist the provincial government of Nova Scotia in any way in its acquisition of the Dosco steel plant.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend reads the letter a little more carefully I think he will realize that is not a correct interpretation to be given to it. As I said yesterday, I will be
6290	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry discussing that communication and the whole problem with the premier of Nova Scotia either over the week end or early in the week.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the premier indicates in his letter that the cost of acquiring the plant would be between $20 million and $25 million, would the Prime Minister not consider it in the national interest to assist the provincial government in acquiring that plant without laying on it too heavy a burden in the form of a loan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I consider it in the national interest for us to help Nova Scotia to achieve the objective that the provincial government has in mind, of assisting this industry and the people of Cape Breton in this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether we can deduce from his remarks that the question of a loan to the province of Nova Scotia to acquire the assets of Dosco is still open and has not been definitely decided in the negative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have put alternative proposals to the government of Nova Scotia which we think are of very great assistance to that province in that matter. I have no doubt the premier will be anxious to discuss the letter; he has already indicated that he will take it up with me.



POSSIBLE IMPORT OF FROZEN BEEF FROM ARGENTINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I have no information which would confirm that report, which I sincerely hope is inaccurate. I will look into the matter immediately.']
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to give the house the further information that he indicated he would obtain on the proposal to import meat products from the Argentine?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the two questions raised by the hon. member for Kamloops on Wednesday last as to whether I would care to modify my answer to the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose on January 29, which dealt with whether my department

DEBATES	February 2, 19S8
or the government contemplates the importation of frozen meat into Canada, I would draw attention to the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose as reported at page 6072 of Hansard. The question was as follows:
Is it true that the government is considering importing frozen beef from the Argentine?
My answer was that the Department of Agriculture is not considering importing beef from the Argentine. I said I could not speak for other departments but that to my knowledge they were not. That was a correct answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose.
As the hon. member knows, there are no restrictions on the importation into Canada of cooked canned meat products, and such products have been imported from Argentina for many years. The investigation being carried out by my department concerns a new type of packaging of a fully cooked meat product which is not canned but is packed in large polyethylene containers and then frozen for shipment. The product is intended primarily for use in the commercial manufacture of meat type food products.
No final decision has yet been taken as to whether this new type of container is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Prime Minister which is a follow up of a question I asked him the other day. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give the house a report on the safety of Canadians in Viet Nam, both those who are employed by the government and others.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add very much to what I said the other day. I hope we will be getting a more definitive report over the week end that will bring us up to date on the most recent developments. No Canadians seem to have suffered physically as a result of these harrowing events, though they have had some unpleasant experiences. As far as we know everything is as I said it was the other day, but I hope to make another report on Monday.
February 2. 19G8	COMMONS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I realize a question similar to the one I have in mind has already been asked, but because of the urgency, and because the right hon. Prime Minister may have received some later news, I beg leave to ask it again. In view of reports that have just been received that a number of civilian Canadians have lost their lives in Viet Nam, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he has received any word since the house convened or since he answered the previous question as to the well-being of our aid personnel, mission personnel and other civilians who might be there in some capacity? If not, will steps be taken to obtain this information if at all possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information which would confirm that report, which I sincerely hope is inaccurate. I will look into the matter immediately.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board who now reports for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the minister's interest in getting the best use of the money available for housing, can he inform the house why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has awarded a contract for the construction of a 19 storey senior citizens home in Vancouver which provides for higher costs and fewer units than other proposals submitted for the same project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is
argumentative.


Robert William Prittie: Ten o'clock.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister anything further to report with respect to his promise to look into the complaints of the Canadian Pacific railroaders on the Kettle Valley railway?
DEBATES	6291
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I never received such a complaint.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to the one I directed to the Minister of Labour, and I should like to direct this question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. Has he any information to give the house about certain complaints by C.P.R. employees on the Kettle Valley division regarding their contracts?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive complaints similar to those received by the hon. member for Kootenay west, which I referred to the deputy minister of labour. Perhaps the correspondence has not yet reached the minister's office.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimali-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday the minister said the present winter works program would not be renewed next winter. Can the minister say whether a modified program for winter works will be proposed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we shall have to meet with the provinces before we can say exactly what kind of program will be the replacement.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to propose to the provinces a modified plan of winter works?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are still in discussion with the provinces, and I cannot say more than I have already said.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the discovery that falsely graded beef has been on sale in Montreal, what precautions has the minister taken to see that this practice is immediately stopped?
6292	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, departmental inspectors of course are constantly on the watch for such breaches of the law, and I think it was as a result of their actions that the present prosecutions are being undertaken. I believe some of the cases are still sub judice; therefore I should perhaps not say more than I have said.
I assure the hon. member that all possible precautions are taken by departmental inspectors.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister taken any steps to protect the consumer, and to lay charges for false advertising?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: We are looking into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report that St. Lawrence Butchers Limited in Montreal were charged last fall with selling meat unfit for human consumption, what immediate steps did the Department of Agriculture take to investigate the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a repetition of a question which has just been asked.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is this low grade meat still supplied to the veterans hospitals and other federal institutions?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I read the story only this morning, and I am having it looked into.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the new reprint of the British North America Act published under the name of the hon. Minister of Justice and added to the new fictionalized edition of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights constitute all the documents which

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
are to be studied at the upcoming federal-provincial conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; other material is coming forward.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representation from Superior Auto Service Association protesting a recent increase in gasoline and fuel oil prices, and can the minister inform the house of his reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.


Melville Carlyle Germa: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would ask another question to facilitate matters.


Melville Carlyle Germa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister reply to a similar question that was raised by my colleague from York South a few days ago. At that time the minister said his department was investigating these price increases.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can reply in part. I received a report this morning, but I have not yet had an opportunity to read it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: May I at this time reply to a question which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam. I have examined Hansard, and the reply about copper prices was given by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce on December 20.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I examined the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it did not really deal with the question I had directed originally to the Minister of Finance on December 18. I asked the minister if his officials were looking into the increased price of copper and wheth-
February 2, 1968	COMMONS
er the price increase was justified. The Minister of Finance said that his officials were looking into it, and I am asking for a reply. The answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce had nothing to do with whether the increases were justified, but with whether there had been similar increases in other parts of the world.



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 (Mr. McIntosh) asked me a question concerning T-l forms.
Today is February 2, 1968, and the personal income tax returns are now available. Post offices throughout Canada are in a position to supply copies of those forms on request, and they are also available at all district taxation offices.
That form must be completed and filed by April 30, 1968. Therefore, I can see no reason why the penalties should be waived in the circumstances. There has been no delay in the distribution of the forms compared to last year.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am afraid the minister has not given the correct answer yet. The T-l forms normally go out on December 15. This year in my region particularly, and I do not know whether this was prevalent all over Canada, they did not arrive until January 16, and I am advised that some of the farmers concerned had to have their returns in by December 31.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, tTranslation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On this subject, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say, first of all, that the mistake made yesterday was not mine, but that of the hon. member who worded his question wrongly. There is no delay as compared to last year. Some people perhaps did not receive their forms on time, but they can always get one from the post offices or the district taxation offices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	6293
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



NORAD-REPORTED U.S. PROPOSALS FOR MODERNIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Russell MacEwen (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he say whether he has yet been advised by the United States defence department of its intention to seek many changes in the NORAD agreement? If so, is he in a position at this time to advise the house on this important matter?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member is confusing the NORAD agreement and the announcement made by Secretary McNamara, which are two different things.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes, I was speaking of the announcement by Defence Secretary McNamara, which the Canadian public were advised today was in that regard.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As far as can be
foreseen, Mr. Speaker, the proposed modernization of the air defence capability in North America contemplates continued requirement for the Pine Tree radar line and manned interceptors, and the eventual phasing out of the Bomarcs and the D.E.W. line facilities.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the constitutional conference commencing next week may I ask the Minister of Justice whether it is the intention of the government to present for consideration by the conference a specific document by way of a charter of Canadian rights, or merely to discuss the principles outlined in the white paper tabled yesterday?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to have the principles discussed before presenting any legal document, in order to reach agreement on the principles and many basic ideas before embarking on any legal squabble over words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government at the moment has no specific proposals to lay before the conference. Is that correct?
6294	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Trudeau:: To answer with precision, Mr. Speaker, the government has specific proposals but it does not intend to lay them before the conference during these particular three days. It is hoped that there will be a continuing committee of attorneys general who will want to look at the specific document when we reach, or if we reach, agreement on the principles.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the last edition of the British North America Act is out of print and whether that is why the complete new edition is being published in this volume under a new title and particularly over the signature of the Minister of Justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker; two points: Many people speak of the constitution in complete ignorance of the said constitution. It occurred to us that it might be useful if the member for Lapointe had a copy.
Second, many people think that the constitution is not over my signature but over the signature of the Queen of England. Either way, it is not true.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
In publishing a new British North America Act for presentation to the provincial premiers, did the Minister of Justice think that the provincial premiers were not informed of the constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the conference which is to begin next Monday. In view of the fact that several provinces have made efforts to limit the academic freedom of the universities, has the minister given any thought to raising this matter with the provinces to determine whether he can entrench the right of the universities to be free to decide their own academic course?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will notice that in the declaration of rights there is a section which relates to freedom of expression. This governs freedom of expression in all areas of Canada.
[Mr. Fulton.)
DEBATES	February 2. 1968


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood my question. I am referring to the financial pressures to which the universities are subjected by the provinces, which are trying to control the individual activities of the universities. I ask this question in view of having read the report the minister has brought forward.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to see in what way something of this nature could be guaranteed in a bill of rights.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rolland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could he tell us if the farmers in our areas will soon know the results of the work done by the members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and if they will benefit from a reduction in the price of feed?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the eastern farmers will be delighted with the good work of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the government receive any letters, telegrams or other communications requesting an increase in National Housing Act interest rates prior to the recent increase to 8J per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper. The hon. member knows that if he wishes the production of papers there is a proper procedure to follow.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to the previous question, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to table those letters and telegrams in order to save time. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to table those communications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the matter.
February 2. 1968	COMMONS



ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY TARIFF REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. Would the minister advise the house whether the government adjustment loans to industries which are severely affected by the Kennedy round of tariffs will be applicable to Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The answer briefly is that if on all other counts a subsidiary of a United States company qualifies, it will not be disqualified by reason of being a subsidiary of a United States company.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, would the minister like to elaborate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think any elaboration should be pursued on motions.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the precedent in the past, when Mr. St. Laurent was elected leader on August 6, 1948 and did not become prime minister until November 15, will the Prime Minister advise the house whether he intends to retire immediately following the leadership convention?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman will be glad to know that I will be getting out as soon as I can get a mover.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of a report in one of this morning's newspapers to the effect that the minister had stated that the Canadian Union of
DEBATES	6295
Inquiries of the Ministry Public Employees supported the passage of Bill C-186, will he inform the house the source of that information, assuming the report to be correct?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when I read that paragraph of the newspaper report this morning. The hon. member for York South and others who were there know that I made no such statement. I did say that certain unions affiliated with the teamsters council supported the principle contained in the bill introduced by the government, but I certainly never suggested that CUPE or any of its member unions had done so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the commitment made several days ago in this House of Commons by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he agreed to a joint meeting of the standing committees on defence and external affairs relative to NATO and NORAD, will the minister indicate when the house can expect the motion for reference to be placed on the order paper?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I do not know about the motion, Mr. Speaker, but I know the first meeting is planned for February 15.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister whether he is referring to a meeting of the defence committee or a joint meeting of the defence and external affairs committees?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I refer to a joint meeting.


Harold Edward Winch: I apologize for the delay, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the statement just made to the house by the Minister of National Defence that there is to be a joint meeting of the defence and external affairs committees on February 15 I should like to ask the minister to explain why members of those committees have not been notified of this meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
6296	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as one of the members of the internal economy commission. Have any steps been taken to facilitate the implementation of the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service that there be collective bargaining for employees of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take up this matter with Your Honour before answering.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 1, 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 provision-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening clause 2(h) with an amendment by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona was under consideration.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.


Michael Starr: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Starr: Why is this stalling taking place?


Miss LaMarsh:: Since there was so much noise in the chamber, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you would be good enough to again read the question.


Mr. Churchill:: This is just stalling.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The question is on the amendment to subclause (h) of clause 2 moved by Mr. Nugent, which would then read as follows:
-where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
broadcasting system, all other factors being equal the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Nugent) negatived: Yeas, 49; nays, 55.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall the subclause as amended carry?
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before clause 2 is passed, and since the Prime Minister is in the house, I am wondering if it would not be advisable to stand clause 2 until the next federal-provincial conference is over.
We know that two days ago the Quebec premier accused the federal government of aggression because it had invaded the field of education which comes under provincial jurisdiction and because it was trying, without prior consultation with the provinces, to include words such as national unity.
If clause 2 were passed on the eve of the opening of that federal-provincial conference, that would be, Mr. Chairman, sheer provocation as far as the Quebec government is concerned. In the circumstances, and if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) are really sincere, it seems to me that the clear and definite objection expressed by the Quebec government as to preliminary consultations before a hasty passing of the bill should be taken into consideration, and I wonder whether it would not be better to defer consideration of clause 2.
We can pass on to other clauses. There is clause 3 and about 50 other clauses to pass in Bill No. C-163 and they will certainly not be agreed to before the end of the federal-provincial conference. If, during the conference, there are consultations about this bill, it will then be possible to submit amendments. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the government would be wise to stand clause 2, in order to comply with the representations of the provincial governments demanding that consultations be held before a too hasty passage of this bill.
February 2. 1968

I would not make such a proposal if there were still a month to elapse before the federal-provincial conference, but since it is our last sitting before the opening of that federal provincial conference, I feel that it is essential.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on the matter, but I think it would be advisable to stand this clause. I think that the government should accept this suggestion. It would be an indication of its good faith and good intentions, while the contrary could be considered as an act of provocation or paternalistism. It would mean that the clause would be passed without any consideration being given to the representations of the provincial governments, even if a meeting has been arranged in the hope of reaching an agreement. In fact, this would be the same as saying: "A decision has been made and we go ahead". This is more or less what the hasty passing of clause 2 would imply.
That is why I would ask the government to stand clause 2 until after the federal-provincial conference. Could the hon. Secretary of State (Miss Lamarsh) or the right hon. Prime Minister make their views known on this?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question, and I wonder if I could get an answer. Would the government be ready to stand clause 2 until after the federal-provincial conference? That is the question I am asking.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member cannot speak again.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question? Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that there is no intention to postpone examination of clause 2?


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


Gilles Grégoire: I see that there is no intention to stand clause 2 and that provocative action is preferred, right on the eve of the federal-provincial conference.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Liberals object, but you will admit that the situation is rather serious. On the one hand, the federal government accuses the Quebec government of having imperialistic ambitions. The Quebec government answers by accusing the federal government of aggression. It reminds me of the international situation. The North Koreans call the Americans imperialists-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman. A vote will have to be taken.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to: Yeas 72; nays, 5.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare clause 2 as
amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Definitions.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this clause be stood because I wanted to raise a question about the name of the regulatory authority. I do not know whether other hon. members share my feeling, but despite the work which has gone into trying to choose an appropriate name for this body I feel that the name, in English at least, is not very appropriate. This will be a quasi-judicial body, virtually a supreme court of broadcasting, and it seems to me the word "council" in English is not the right word for that kind of body. I understand that in French the word "commission" is not particularly appropriate either and that the word "conseil" was considered to be better.
However, I do not think it is essential to translate these words literally, and I would like to hear the minister's reaction to the use of the word "commission" in the English version of the name. Personally I would not mind reverting to the names "Canadian broadcasting authority" and "regie des on-des" as Fowler suggested, or even "Board of Broadcast Governors" have suggested, but it seems to me the word "council" is quite inappropriate for such an important quasijudicial body.
As I said, I asked that this clause stand for the purpose of raising this question now. It was pointed out to me that perhaps I should
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Llrcadcasting have asked that practically every clause from clause 3 to the end of the bill be stood because the word "council" is mentioned in so many of them. But I have taken some modest legal advice on this matter and it was suggested to me that if my question is raised on the first clause in which this name appears and if the change is agreed to, then the parliamentary counsel, if no one else, would make the necessary changes in the other clauses of the bill.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I should simply like to raise the question. If it is not of concern to other members I am not going to press it or take the time of the committee on this point. However, I did want to get the reaction of the minister and representatives of the other parties to this suggestion.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I agree in general with the point of view just expressed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I believe the word "council" is very weak. This would be an authority with some power, and I too prefer the words which Mr. Fowler originally suggested, "Regie des ondes", in French or "Canadian broadcasting authority" in English. I do not believe this issue is one I would want to debate at any great length, but the word "council" in English seems weak.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not particularly like the word "council" either. This change was made by the broadcasting committee. I feel that the word "council" in English does not represent anything as important as a regulatory body. It was always my understanding when I was on the opposite side that one could change a name by simply moving an amendment and then saying wherever the name appears elsewhere in the legislation the name shall be changed.
It may very well be, if the committee is interested in this, that we could give the hon. member until we come back at 2.30 to discuss the point with some other members and arrive at a new name if there is one that is more satisfactory. I am in the hands of the committee. I believe a rose is still a rose even if you call it something else, but it does seem to me there might be a name more in keeping with a regulatory body than the name "council". If the committee would do so I would be prepared to stand this clause until 2.30 to give the hon. member an opportunity to ascertain whether there is some agreement on the matter.
[Mr. Stanbury.l


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I don't know whether that is necessary. I discussed the matter yesterday with the pro tem broadcasting critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I do not know whether he wishes to express an opinion. The hon. member for Halifax was not in the house when I spoke to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, but perhaps they have discussed this point. I took it up with the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond, and there may be little point in standing the clause if the minister finds my suggestion acceptable and if the broadcasting critics for the other parties have found it acceptable. Perhaps the point should be disposed of rather than having the clause stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 stand?


Mr. Cowan:: I have some comments to make with regard to clause 3 that do not bear on the point raised by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. While I am not objecting to standing his point until 2.30, I do wish to address a question or two to the Secretary of State while we are considering clause 3. I have been stating since last September, which is some five or six months, that I was opposed to the wording of clause 2(c) as it was presented to us. Clause 2(c) has been amended in a manner satisfactory to me. However, following the amendment of clause 2(c) there are still some little points left in the other clauses. When I refer to these other clauses I hope the Chair will not call me to order and say we are discussing clause 3. I have some questions to ask the Secretary of State about clause 3(d), which reads:
(d) "broadcasting undertaking" includes a broadcasting transmitting undertaking, a broadcasting receiving undertaking-
If clause 2(c) had not been amended in the manner it has, I was prepared to move the deletion from clause 3(d) of the words "a broadcasting receiving undertaking", because a receiving undertaking certainly is not a broadcasting undertaking. Now, when the operators of C.A.T.V. systems and those who believe in the freedom of speech principle expressed their satisfaction with the amendment to clause 2(c), this involved a certain principle that has not been mentioned so far in the committee, and it is this. Up to this time a C.A.T.V. application has been discussed in private by the Board of Broadcast Governors. There has been no public hearing.
The board makes an informal recommendation to the Minister of Transport, and the
February 2, 1988

Minister of Transport either refuses the application, amends it or issues a licence.
Under the Broadcasting Act as originally brought down with clause 2(c) unacceptable, certain C.A.T.V. operators made the remark that they would accept it, much as they disliked it, because they presumed that under clause 3, subclause (d) and under clause 19 there would be public hearings of C.A.T.V. applications. Now, not only would this new act, if it had not been amended, have trodden upon the principle of freedom of speech, for the first time it would have opened up public hearings for C.A.T.V. applications, which C.A.T.V. applicants have not enjoyed in the past. The C.A.T.V. people therefore, having been butted around by the cabinet for quite a time, gave a grudging assent to the bill as originally introduced on the basis that what they lost on the roundabouts, namely in the freedom of speech principle, they at least picked up by having open hearings on C.A.T.V. applications.
Under clause 19, which is headed "Hearings and procedure"-this is one clause which I asked yesterday be allowed to stand-we find this:
A public hearing shall be held by the councilfa) in connection with the issue of a broadcasting licence-
Anyone who knows anything about C.A.T.V. knows it is not a broadcasting setup. The question is, basically, is a hearing on a C.A.T.V. application to be considered as one for a broadcasting licence? In looking at clause 3 we find in clause 3(c) the following:
(c)	"broadcasting licence" or, in parts II and III, "licence" means a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued under this act;
I am not a lawyer but clause 3(d), the one to which I am directing my remarks at the moment, reads:
(d)	"broadcasting undertaking" includes a broadcasting transmitting undertaking, a broadcasting receiving undertaking-
This wording in clause 3(d) "a broadcasting receiving undertaking" would make it appear that would be covered by subclause 3(c), which reads:
(c) "broadcasting licence" or, in parts II and III, "licence" means a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued under this act;
The question I want to ask the Secretary of State, and I not only want an answer but I expect an answer or I shall discuss the matter at some length, is this. Will a C.A.T.V. application in the future be heard at an open meeting of the council, or whatever you want
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to call it, as though it were an application for a broadcasting licence, although a C.A.T.V. operation is not broadcasting in any manner but is only reception?
[DOT] (12 noon)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think I had better say that my hon. friend is very much mistaken if he believes that C.A.T.V. has been taken out of the bill by the amendment to which I agreed. I was careful to agree only to such language as would not remove it from control by the authority, and the government has no intention of agreeing to any changes which would have that effect.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I cannot make head or tail of that answer but perhaps I am a little dense. I only asked whether applications for C.A.T.V. licences would in future be heard in open hearings or whether they would continue to be considered in the course of a hole in the wall deal.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 19 calls for public hearings in connection with broadcasting licences and an application for a C.A.T.V. operation is, of course, an application for a broadcasting licence. Therefore there would be the same provision for open hearings as is made in the case of other kinds of broadcasting undertakings.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to thank the minister for her statement that there are to be public hearings. This was the deduction we had made but we wanted to have it confirmed. The next question I should like to ask the minister is this. I am a member of the Liberal party. Let no one speak otherwise. If this bill passes with an amended clause 2(c) and with the understanding we have from the hon. lady that C.A.T.V. applications will be heard in public in future, will that damnable statement of July 22, 1964 by the minister of transport be automatically killed or does it remain in force and effect? In the fifth paragraph of that statement we find this comment by the minister of transport:
The government has two main concerns. One is to see that C.A.T.V. installations in Canada do not come under the ownership and control of persons and corporations which are not Canadian. The other is to see that C.A.T.V. installations designed to receive broadcasts emanating from outside the area reached by any local Canadian television station, and particularly from outside Canada, are unlikely to make the operation of any existing television station uneconomic or to inhibit the provision of alternate Canadian television service in the area concerned.
6300	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
My question is: Does this damnable statement die when the act becomes effective, in view of the control over applications for C.A.T.V. licences which the legislation would give the new council, or does the statement I have read still hold water?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is that a statement from the department or by the Board of Broadcast Governors?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: By the then minister of transport. He is more important than the department.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I can only say there is a new Minister of Transport now. But the hon. gentleman is well aware that there will be a new board, whatever may be its name, with its own responsibility to follow the legislation which this house enacts. It will be bound by whatever regulations and structure are given to it by orders in council. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what may happen in the next few months. I do not expect to be here in a position to influence the course of events in any way. I think the hon. member will have to wait and see what happens. I can give him no assurance.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The minister has said that the board will be bound by the legislation passed by this house and added that it will also be bound by orders in council passed in the future. I am glad to have that assurance from her, though I know Hansard cannot be considered as a legal document and is not binding in courts of law. The minister of transport of the day assumed a great deal of authority for himself on July 22, 1964, because he said there was no regulation of C.A.T.V. And that great god of the radio world, R. M. Fowler, made some comments in his 1965 report on broadcasting. He said:
Our terms of reference specifically excluded community antenna services.
Then he went on to make many references to them, stating that the radio and television world lacked legal authority to control them and that something had to be done. Now that C.A.T.V. applications are to fall within the jurisdiction of the broadcasting council, as I will call it for the moment, and since clause 2(c) has been amended and we believe there will be reasonable men on the board, we expect the legislation of this parliament to kill deader than a dodo the autocratic statement of the minister of transport on July 22, 1964.

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
If an act of parliament does not kill that statement there is no use in parliament passing acts at all; ministers can simply issue statements which will have the force of law. I will accept what has been said by the Secretary of State that the new board will be bound by the legislation of parliament and by the orders in council which may be issued, and I am certain that this means free and open hearings of all C.A.T.V. applications as suggested, though rather indirectly, in subclauses 3(c) and 3(d). Clause 3(c) reads:
-"broadcasting licence" or.. ."licence" means a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued under this Act;
Then clause 3(d) goes on to say that a broadcasting undertaking includes a broadcasting transmitting undertaking. While reception is entirely different from broadcasting, the two are inextricably involved and since in clause 19 it is stated that a public hearing shall be held by the council in connection with the issue of a broadcasting licence I take it, and I wish it to be on record in Hansard if nowhere else, that there will be public hearings in connection with the issue of a broadcasting licence, and under 3(d) a broadcasting undertaking includes a broadcasting receiving undertaking.
I have no other feeling on this question of clause 3. I believe I have made my stand clear, the stand of the people who believe in the principle of freedom of speech. I am happy to have the Secretary of State's assurance on the record, and I thank her sincerely.


Mr. Ballard:: I want to say one word in response to a question which the hon. member for York-Scarborough put in my direction a few moments ago. I am in favour of the amendment he has proposed to clause 3 and I have no objection to raise to his suggestion at this point.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In view of the consultations which have taken place I move:
That wherever In clause 3 and throughout the bill the word "council'' as defined in clause 3(f) appears there shall be substituted therefor in the English text the word "commission".


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, that amendment is acceptable to the official opposition.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What would be the abbreviation in letters if this were accepted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It would be C.R.T.C. in both languages, I would assume.
February 2, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know, under the circumstances, what will be the term used in French.


Robert William Prittie: "Conseil".


David Lewis: It remains "Conseil".
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If the chairman is concerned about whether or not there can be two different words in the two languages here, I think attention should be drawn to the fact that for many years the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been the English form of the name of our broadcasting service and Radio-Canada has been the French form. The B.B.G. bears two names in the statute; it appears in both languages. Many of our national institutions have different names in the two languages; they are not necessarily direct translations from one language to the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if I interpret correctly the furrows in your brow I think what is troubling you is an amendment to clause 3 that will require amendments to be made to a dozen or so clauses throughout the bill. I am sure the general agreement there is to make this change will produce unanimous consent on the part of hon. members that every clause with the same reference be properly amended.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The difficulty the amendment proposed by the hon. member creates is that while the only question before the committee at the moment is clause 3, and normally an amendment should apply only to clause 3, there will be a number of places throughout the bill where this word has to be changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even in some clauses that we have already carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes. It can be done in one of two ways. Either each clause can be amended as we come to it or the committee can agree by unanimous consent to change the word in the different clauses as the clauses are considered. There is another problem that comes to my mind and that is that a number of the clauses have already been carried. Would there be unanimous consent on the part of the committee to change this word even in those clauses that have already been carried?
6301
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that by unanimous consent of the committee this same amendment will apply to each of the following clauses, as well as to those which have already been carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause as amended agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now pass to clause 7.


An hon. Member:: What about clause 4?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 4 has been carried, clause 5 has been carried and clause 6 has been carried. The next clause for consideration of the committee is clause 7.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-President and Vice President.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief suggestion to make. The terms now used for the two chief officers of the regulatory body should, I think, remain rather than confuse the situation by calling them "president" and vice president". In the French version this is appropriate, but in the English version of the bill I suggest that the terms "chairman" and "vice chairman" be retained. I have consulted with the broadcasting critics on the other side about this matter, and if the minister has no objection I think there will be general agreement to this suggestion. Therefore I move:
That in subclause (1) of clause 8 the words "chairman" and "vice chairman" be substituted for the words ' president" and "vice president" respectively in the English text.


David Lewis: And throughout the bill?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: My hon. friend from York South points out that perhaps again we should add the words "and throughout the bill" if there are other references to these terms. I will therefore add those words to my motion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Moved by the hon. member for York-Scarborough:
That in subclause (1) of clause 8 the words "chairman" and "vice-chairman" be substituted for the words "president" and "vice president" respectively in the English text.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 2, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Mr. Slanbury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether you read the words "and throughout the bill".
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would ask the unanimous consent of the committee to make the consequential changes that are based on this amendment to those clauses following clause 8, as well as to those clauses that have already been carried. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And including the other subclauses in clause 8.


Mr. Slanbury:: Mr. Chairman, I have a further suggestion to make in connection with clause 8 that arises out of the uncertainty over how the vice chairman assumes the responsibilities of the chairman. We have heard much of the problems that arise when a president of the United States is incapacitated. We need not labour the difficulties that can arise in that situation. In clause 36 (2) of the bill provision is made for the corporation, that is, the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to make the decision when the vice president should assume the duties of the president in the absence or incapacity of the president. There is no such provision in clause 8 with respect to the chairman and the vice chairman of the regulatory authority. It seems to me that by analogy there should be a provision that the members of the council or, as we have now decided to call it, the commission, should make the decision that the absence or incapacity of the chairman is such as to require the vice chairman to assume all his powers and functions. I should therefore like to have the minister's reaction to this suggestion. If she has no serious objection I should like to move:
That subclause (3) of clause 8 be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"In the event of the absence or incapacity of the chairman or if the office of chairman is vacant, the commission may authorize the vice chairman to exercise all the powers and functions of the president."
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am content with that.


Richard J. Stanbury: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. A day or two ago when the committee discussed clause 2(h), the hon. member for Halifax presented an amendment which recommended that clause 2(h) be deleted. The Chair did not give as much weight to the word "deleted" in that
[The Chairman.]
amendment as might have been given to it since the first two or three lines of the amendment were exactly the same as the first two or three lines of the clause. The Chair considered the amendment moved by the hon. member as calling for the clause to be amended rather than deleted.
I wish to say to the committee that a motion to move the deletion of a clause is not in order. If it is the wish of the committee to change subclause 3 of clause 8 and to substitute a new clause therefor, the proper procedure is to negative subclause 3 and, having done that, to substitute a new clause.


Richard J. Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, the amendment extends the meaning of the present subclause. If the Chair will permit a change in the wording to bring the amendment into line with the suggested wording, I shall be prepared to amend my motion accordingly. I am prepared to accept the most expeditious procedure that may recommend itself to the committee.


Mr.   Chairman@: I prefer the hon. member to redraft his amendment in such a way as not to use the word "delete".


Richard J. Stanbury: May I redraft my amendment from where I stand?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the hon. member should think about it because his amendment speaks of the president and the vicechairman.


Richard J. Stanbury: Not as it was read. I move:
That subclause (3) of clause 8 be reworded as follows:
"In the event of the absence or incapacity of the chairman or if the office of chairman is vacant, the commission may authorize the vice-chairman to exercise all the powers and functions of the chairman".


Herman Maxwell Batten: The form in which the hon. member for York-Scarborough has presented his amendment is not usually acceptable but if there is unanimous consent by the committee, and without prejudice to any future ruling of a chairman about use of the word "delete", I shall put the amendment. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 8 as amended carry?
February 2, 1968	COMMONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Your Honour called the amendment, which carried, and you are now in the process of calling clause 8 as amended? Is that correct?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Only one clause is before the committee, nobody requested that it be broken into subclauses. The Chair therefore has only one question to consider and that is clause 8. Shall clause 8 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to suggest an amendment to clause 8 (1) which stipulates:
The Governor in Council shall designate one of the full-time members to be President of the Council and one of the full-time members to be Vice-President of the Council.
I should like the following to be added at the end of that paragraph:
"One of the two shall be French-speaking and the other English-speaking; both however, shall, speak both languages."
Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is that we are now dealing with radio and television, and the president of the council and the vice-president must be in a position to keep up with what goes on in the field of broadcasting.
Since there is both a French and an English network in the public or the private sector, one of the senior members of the C.R.C. should be in a position, if he wants to judge of the propriety of certain remarks, to understand what is said either on radio or on television.
It is not the same thing as with newspaper items which can always be translated. Radio and television are involved here; it is therefore a question of the spoken word rather than merely the written language. In the circumstances, I feel it is important that one of the two senior officers should be able to speak or, at least, understand either one of the two official languages.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that one of the two should have French and the other English as his mother tongue, because one can always judge better then. I would also add that both must, however, speak the two languages, because I think that both must be bilingual in order to perform their duties adequately.
DEBATES	6303
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I think there will probably be no objection to this amendment in view of the present concern with bilingualism in government organizations.
I was just reading a passage on page 30 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, published under the patronage of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) not too long ago. I quote:
It is submitted that these language guarantees be extended to other institutions of government and to education-
It says "guarantees" and not simply "possibilities". It says very clearly:
-that these language guarantees be extended to other institutions of government-
But this commission is an institution of government, just like the C.B.C., and therefore I do not think too many objections will be raised to the amendment I have just moved.


Mr. Choquetle:: Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could you first read my amendment?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is moved by Mr. Gregoire that subclause (1) of clause 8 be amended by adding at the end the words:
One of the two shall be French-speaking and the other English-speaking; both, however, shall speak both languages.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, just a word to explain why the text of the amendment is unacceptable.
It is exactly as if it was stated in a statute that in order to be appointed to a position a person must be competent. More and more and according to the spirit of the Bill of Rights the use of both languages is accepted in federal institutions. Therefore, if it is stated in a statute that a certain senior official must have sufficient knowledge of the other language, that is equal to saying that to accede to this or that post one must be competent. That is a useless repetition. The spirit of the amendment is acceptable but what becomes somewhat unthinkable is to include in a statute, as the hon. member seems to indicate, such or such a degree of competence.
It is obvious that to obtain a senior appointment, one must be competent. It is more and more evident that a position like that one calls for an adequate knowledge of both languages. It is not necessary to stipulate it in the act; it would be redundancy.
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks on that subject. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) says that it is more and more an acknowledged fact that to be able to express oneself in both languages in a federal government agency is a proof of competence. If such were the case in practice, if the usual practice and tradition had been such in the past, I do not say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere would not be right, but precisely tradition did not accustom us to that.
I read recently in Hansard an answer to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). A list of the directors of each crown corporation and government board was given mentioning the number of those who were bilingual, English-speaking or French-speaking. I was surprised to see that still today, a year after our centennial, there were several boards and crown corporations without any French speaking director.
It is precisely due to such facts, that I have deemed it advisable to present that amendment. Perhaps in a general policy statement, the hon. member for Lotbiniere would rightly mention that it is a matter of competence, but the fact is not always recognized. We now have evidence thereof based on figures and facts. I do not remember on what date, this answer appeared in Hansard. That is why I cannot give the figures but during the lunch hour, I will probably check on it and bring down something more definite.
But the facts have proven and still prove, through a reply given less than a month ago to a question on the order paper that within crown corporations and government bodies, this knowledge of qualification evaluation was not always observed.
In the circumstances and since the facts are so contrary to the principle mentioned by the member for Lotbiniere, I believe that he should make an effort-it should not be too difficult for him-to force the government to practise what it so highly preaches.
It is one of the objectives of my amendment and I am surprised that the member for Lotbiniere should object. He claims that writing it out in the bill does not mean anything. I believe it does, precisely because the facts have shown that we are justified in asking that it be written into the bill. If it is written into the bill, then we can say it is compulsory. The Canadian Bill of Rights is not in the act, in the constitution and the Minister of Justice says that if it were included in the

constition, it would have force of law and be much more valuable. That is the argument brought forth by the Minister of Justice.
Well, I think the same thing applies to bilingualism; if it were written into the legislation, it would have force of law and it would be much more valuable and could not be evaded.
I wonder why the hon. member for Lotbiniere objects to having it written into the act, for the same reason as the Minister of Justice wants the Bill of Rights to be written down in the legislation, in the constitution.
This argument of the Minister of Justice brings down the whole argument of the member for Lotbiniere and it is the best reference I can give him. That is why I submit the amendment is necessary to correct the present situation and all should make it a duty to support it.

Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 31.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Clause as amended agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 9 has already been carried. The next clause for consideration by the committee is clause 10. Shall clause 10 carry?
Clause 10 agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 11 has been carried and also clause 12. The next clause for consideration is clause 13.
On clause 13-By-laws.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman. I wish to deal with clause 13.
Mr. Chairman, clause 13 refers to the bylaws that the council may make. I wonder whether it is under this clause or under clause 16-the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh) may perhaps prefer the latter-that one may move an amendment to the effect that any increase in the rates of radio and television stations must be submitted to the C.R.C. before coming into force.
I wonder whether such an amendment should be moved during consideration of those by-laws.
Does the Secretary of State think that an amendment should be moved to clause 13 or to clause 16?
February 2, 1988


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not agree that it is the business of parliament under either clause to interfere with the private sector in regard to its setting of rates for the hours of broadcasting. As a matter of fact I thought the hon. member raised enough money in France to pay whatever the rates might be.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Secretary of State is being witty and it suits her. When she smiles this way, she becomes increasingly charming.
However, I should like to point out to her that I did not say that the government had jurisdiction over the fixing of rates of broadcasting and television stations. But it might come under the jurisdiction of a council such as this one, since agencies created by the government are qualified to accept or refuse rate increases.


David Lewis: It affects the powers of the council; that will come under clause 16.


Gilles Grégoire: If I am told that this amendment should be moved under clause 16, then I shall move it when we come to the consideration of clause 16.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Objects.
Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, this clause makes it clear that the proposed commission is obligated to implement the broadcasting policy set out in clause 2 of the bill. I would like to direct the attention of the committee specifically to subclause (e) of clause 2, which has already been accepted by the committee. It is stated there:
(e) all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and in French as public funds become available;
Later in clause 2(g) we find the following:
(g) the national broadcasting service should-
(ii) be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available.
This is not a new obligation. It is a restatement of something that has been implicit in all legislation since governments assumed full responsibility for public broadcasting more than 35 years ago. I only hope that in a much shorter period of time this obligation will be discharged. I trust that the legislation now before us will help to fill a gap that the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has allowed to exist over the years.
The particular situation to which I draw attention is the broadcasting void existing in northern Saskatchewan, northeastern Alberta and the adjacent Northwest Territories. This whole vast region, a storehouse of national resources and the home of thousands of good Canadian citizens, has been shunted aside time and again by the C.B.C. in its development of broadcasting facilities. It is the area referred to in the Fowler report of 1965 as "the forgotten north." I draw the attention of the committee to the wording of this bill. In clause 15 and in clause 2 the service owed this area is clearly stated as a right.
In my own constituency a large proportion of the people have no television service whatever. One example is the lie a la Crosse area. Also, over a large area even the radio broadcast service ranges from indifferent to poor. Over the years the people there have been told that they must be patient, that service would be provided but that high costs and other priorities were holding up extension of service to the north. Perhaps there was a day when this sort of excuse was valid, but it cannot be accepted today.
While more than 10,000 people in my small area are without even black and white television service and suffer from inadequate radio service, the rest of Canada has the luxury of colour television. In my area the fishermen, farmers, forest workers, miners and all the companies large and small for which many of them work, pay taxes that go to pay the cost of providing broadcasting services. These services are supposed to be national in scope. They are not supposed to be selective, restricted only to those areas of dense population and easy terrain.
When 60 per cent of Canadians have access to two or more television channels surely it is not too much to ask that the people of my area, and the people of the north generally, be provided with at least one. The Fowler commission of 1965 recognized the justice of this plea. It agreed that it was a matter of urgency and fairness. In its recommendations it gave top priority to the extension of adequate facilities to the north. Only recently the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development emphasized that it is necessary to supply proper broadcasting service to the north if people and industry are to be attracted to the north and expected to stay there.
I had occasion to deal with this matter once before in this chamber, as reported on page

6306	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting 2654 of Hansard for March 14, 1966. At that time I hoped that the C.B.C., if it would not heed my words, would at least heed those of the Fowler commission and of a minister of the crown. But nothing happened. The forgotten north remains forgotten at C.B.C. headquarters. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and myself now have one thing in common. We are equally ignored. I hope that with the new wind blowing through the corridors of C.B.C. headquarters, with a new president and with a new policy directive from parliament the C.B.C. will now undertake the work that should have been done years ago.
At page 194 of the Fowler commission report there is a recommendation that additional operating costs for the northern services be raised by $500,000 a year and that the northern service budget be increased by $1.7 million. This sounds like a great deal of money, and it is. But when one considers the amount of tax money yielded by the area about which I am talking and the ease with which almost twice that amount has been found for enterprises such as the Company of Young Canadians, one feels that such an outlay would be a modest one to ensure fair treatment for a large group of Canadians and the faithful carrying out of broadcasting policy as approved by parliament. It seems to me it would be only simple justice to find a mere one and a half million dollars for a basic northern service when tens of millions of dollars are so readily found to extend colour television service to other segments of the population which already have one, two or more black and white channels from which to choose.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would ask simply for speedy implementation of the policy that is spelled out clearly in this bill and in previous acts, a policy which is clearly justifiable in the national interest. With the passage of this bill let us bring to an end the years of neglect, injustice and unfairness to a large and important area of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Powers exercisable by council on recommendation of executive committee.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was sent to the standing committee it contained a provision empowering the regulatory authority to make regulations respecting scheduling in relation to any category or

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
categories of programs. The committee discussed this at length. It was suggested that this regulatory power probably was impractical and in any case was unnecessary since it was thought that the desired effect could be achieved through the power to determine the conditions of licence. For that reason the committee proposed and passed an amendment to the effect that this provision should be deleted from the bill.
While this was the thought of the committee, what was overlooked in the discussion was that this would cause a rigidity in the system which is undesirable because it would mean that conditions could not be altered except at five year intervals. Further, although clause 63 provides for the continuation of regulations made by the B.B.G. under the 1958 act, there is some question whether such regulations would be valid if they dealt with subjects not specifically covered by regulatory powers in the new legislation.
The key to this situation lies in subclause 2(d) which already has been agreed to by this committee. It is clear that the new regulatory authority must have power to implement the national broadcasting policy in all its aspects. I should like to remind members that subclause 2(d), which is an essential element of the national broadcasting policy, declares that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern. It goes on further to provide that the programming shall be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources.
It seems that the committee inadvertently did drop something essential. I am therefore prepared to have an amendment moved which would add to subclause 16(l)(b)(i) the following:
-and the allocation of broadcasting time for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (d) of section 2.
This would then mean that the subclause would read as follows:
-the council may make regulations "respecting standards of programs and the allocation of broadcasting time for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (d) of section 2."


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that I read the amendment as being proposed by the Minister of Labour?
February 2. 1968


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure the Minister of Labour would be happy to move the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-163 be amended by adding to subclause 16(1) (b) (i) the following:
"and the allocation of broadcasting time for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (d) of section 2."


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, we are agreeable to the amendment. We had anticipated that such an amendment would have to be brought in because while the declaratory clause 2(d), as the minister has noted, makes certain provision it did not seem to us that the power respecting regulations was broad enough after the amendment by the committee to give effect to what is a very important part of the bill. In supporting the minister in her position in this regard about the only comment I can make is that it seems to me this gives the council the power to come to grips with some of the problems which have bothered members of parliament concerning the standard of certain programs. I believe this amendment fills a vacuum which should not exist.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have the French text before me. I wonder whether, instead of saying:
-"et l'attribution du temps demission afin"-
We should not rather say: "l'attribution de periodes d'emissions?"


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I had to leave the chamber to answer a telephone call and have just returned. I am afraid I do not quite understand this. I would appreciate having a further explanation concerning the words, "and the allocation of broadcasting time for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (d) of section 2." Does this mean that the council would be empowered to require stations to provide time for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy? I am afraid I do not quite follow this.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This enables the council to require the stations to carry out the instructions contained in 2(d). A number of things would be required to be varied and comprehensive. When the committee said that these matters should be handled by means of the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting conditions of licence it was not realized that the conditions of licence only come up when licences are renewed every five years. This left it completely inflexible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure about the meaning of the French version. In the English text, it is stated:
-allocation of broadcasting time-
Accordingly should the French version not read: "la distribution de temps d'emission" or "l'attribution de periodes d'emissions", or again "la distribution de temps d'emission"?
I think that would state precisely what the minister has suggested.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this is a special translation which was prepared in advance. I admit that my French is very limited, but I do not know what else the words "l'attribution du temps d'emission" could mean except the allocation of broadcast time. To me the words mean exactly the same thing in both languages.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I call it
one o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: When the committee rose at one o'clock it was considering clause 16 of Bill C-163 and an amendment thereto by the hon. Minister of Labour.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe had asked me about the word "period" instead of the word "temps". I then discussed this with some of my advisers. I am afraid I cannot agree because of the explanation given by the hon. member. What he is after is a phrase which in both English and French would give permission to the regulatory authority to allocate specific periods of time. It was this very suggestion which caused the committee on broadcasting to throw out the original provision. The matter
6308	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting caused some discussion among private broadcasters, the C.B.C. and the	and we
have given assurance from the beginning that there is no intention to direct that specific program periods be allocated. That would be the effect of the amendment which my hon. friend, the member for Lapointe, has moved, calling for the substitution of the word "period" for the word "temps" en frangais.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to move an amendment to clause 16, Mr. Chairman.
Reference is made here to the powers of the C.R.C. which may generally make regulations concerning licence holders and broadcasters. I should like to draw a parallel with another type of undertaking in order to better explain the amendment I wish to move.
Everybody knows that in the field of transportation, for instance, there is a board which issues licences to certain companies operating between two points. For example, there is only one company licensed to provide a bus service between Quebec city and Montreal. This is meant to ensure a certain standard of efficiency, to avoid unnecessary competition and to prevent the establishment of numerous small companies, when no large company could actually be found to meet heavy requirements.
When the transport board involved grants a number of licences, this more or less removes free competition in a certain area, but grants a certain degree of exclusive rights to certain companies. The legislation then provides that if some competition is removed-


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The committee at this time is considering an amendment moved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) that Bill No. C-163 be amended by adding the following subparagraph (i) to paragraph (b) of clause 16:
-and the allocation of broadcast time for the purpose are giving effect to paragraph (d) of clause 2.
That is what we have before us and, I believe the member for Lapointe is not speaking to the amendment we are discussing.


Gilles Grégoire: I believe that has been carried, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The Chair is trying determine whether the sub amendment of the member for Lapointe is in order. But if he is speaking to the amendment, he is out or order.

DEBATES	February 2, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Let the amendment carry, Mr. Chairman, and I shall come back later with my proposition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 16 as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that we are still considering the whole clause 16, and therefore I shall carry on with my remarks in order to move an amendment to add a paragraph thereto.
As I was saying, the government establishes, in a certain field, transportation for instance, an agency to restrict the number of licenses and also to eliminate a certain competition, in an effort to achieve a greater efficiency and, at the same time, the government imposes a condition on those who find themselves in that situation, restricted in the number of businesses, and also on those who happen to be alone or to enjoy a lesser competition, by telling them: In view of the fact that you are spared competition, you will also be prevented from exploiting the users. If there is only one company to move goods between two points, competition for that transport company is eliminated. At the same time, the government will say: Since you are not subject to competition, we shall prevent you from exploiting the public by forcing you to have all your tariffs and rates approved by the transport commission.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The same is true of telephone service, for instance. We say that there will be only one telephone company in a town, to avoid the necessity of installing two series of posts and wires, to avoid the necessity of installing two series of posts and wires, to avoid unnecessary expenses. We avoid competition but, at the same time, we compel the telephone company to come before the transport commission in order to be allowed to increase its rates.
In the field of radio and television, Mr. Chairman, it is the same thing. We decrease competition by restricting the number of licences. For instance, in Quebec, there is a private station and if someone wanted to get another licence, they would refuse it on the
February 2, 1968

grounds that there are no more wavelengths available. Competition does not exist any more. If, owing to the force of circumstances, or the scarcity of wave-lengths or on account of a legislation which obliges an individual to obtain a licence before starting in business in the field of radio and television, in short, if competition is restricted, on the other hand, we must see to it that the public interest is still protected against the exploitation of those who are now free from competition. That is why I think that, in the field of radio and television, as well as in the field of transportation by bus, in the field of telephone and electricity, we must compel the station owners to come before a board to justify their rate increases.
I am in favour of a regulatory body or rather of that Canadian broadcasting council serving also as a regulatory body before which all radio and television stations that want to increase their rates will have to appear at public hearings to prove that their request is warranted.
As far as my amendment is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read it and ask for leave to explain it afterwards. Since clause 16 includes already subclauses (1) and (2), I would like to add to it subclause 3 (b) which reads as follows:
The council shall hold-
That is the Canadian broadcasting council.
The council shall hold public meetings for considering any applications for increases in the rates or tariffs charged by the broadcasters or licensees. No rate or tariff may be increased by the broadcasters or licensees unless authorized by the council following such public hearings.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to put this amendment before the house and then I would like to continue my explanations.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is an
organization described under the name of commission, and the hon. member mentions it by using the word "Conseil". Is it allowed to substitute the word "Conseil" for "Commission"?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in the French version, the word "Conseil" is always used. The word "Council" has been substituted for "Commission" only in the English text and in the French version, the designated organization is called "le Conseil de la Radio-Television canadienne".


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The reason why the Chair raised this point is that the French version of the bill given to the 27053-398J
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Chair mentions the word "commission" instead of "council."


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is a mistake, but it was clearly specified by the member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury) that the change was valid only for the English text and not for the French text. Nevertheless, I objected at that time and I would like to have a ruling from you that the word has not been changed in the French version.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is right when he says that, in the French version, the word "council" has remained. All that we have changed is that, in the English version, we have substituted the word "commission" for the word "council".


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Very well, the Chair understands the situation. It is moved by the member for Lapointe that the following subclause (b), paragraph (3) be added to clause 16:
The council shall hold public meetings for considering any application for increases in the rates or tariffs charges by the broadcasters or licensees. No rate or tariff may be increased by the broadcasters or licensees unless authorized by the council following such public hearings.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I continue my explanations?
It is known for a fact that today there is practically no competition, especially in the field of television. There is only one private station, that is all, in any one area or municipality. That station can ask any rate it wishes from the advertiser or sponsor of television programs. There is hardly no competition and that of the C.B.C. is gradually decreasing in the commercial field. Because the station is the only one, or almost, it lacks competition-except in large centres such as Toronto and Montreal, the licensee can ask the sponsor whatever rates and tariffs it chooses.
In the last few years, the rates and tariffs of television or radio licensees have increased rather rapidly. All this, naturally, is part of the advertising budget of a company, and that is one of the main reasons for the recent increases in rates. If a broadcaster had to justify an increase in the rates or tariffs he charges his sponsors, these increases would often be rejected, or if they were accepted it would be because the private broadcaster had improved the quality of his programs. It is obvious that the profits made by television stations today are very high in comparison
6310	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting with investments, and the reason for this is that there is little or no competition, it having been eliminated either by the law itself or by the small number of frequencies.
Any person cannot get a licence to operate a radio or television station No. It is limited, very limited indeed. Anyone can launch out into running a newspaper; one does not need a licence for that, and whoever wants to can become owner of a newspaper or start a newspaper. There is no limitation in the field of newspapers, but there is in the field of television and radio. First, a wave-length must be available, and then a licence has to be obtained from the Canadian broadcasting council. If competition is eliminated, unfair advantage is taken of the people by a company which, according to the law, no longer has any competition. It is at that time that the public must be protected, and to do that, since favours are bestowed on the licensee, he has to justify his request to increase his rates. [DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I believe it is absolutely normal, but, the radio and television stations may not like it. It is as if we were to say to bus companies which have the exclusive transportation rights between two towns: You may ask the prices you see fit. Needless to say, these companies having no competitors would increase their prices immediately.
In the radio and television field, the same problem exists. If the government eliminates all competition by limiting the number of licences, it must also eliminate the exploitation of the public by requiring the station owners to submit any increase in rates to the approval of the Canadian radio commission.
That is the purpose of my amendment and I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that it will inevitably result-and that is a very important point to consider-in a general improvement of the quality of the programs produced by the private stations because, given their very high margin of profit, they will never be able to get increases in their rates or tariffs now, unless the quality of their programming increases considerably.
Mr. Chairman, I feel this is a very normal request, and there is no precedent involved: Such is already the case for electric power companies, telephone companies, trucking companies, passenger service companies, in all fields, in fact, where the government has established a ceiling on the number of licences. The only field where this was not the case was broadcasting, and it is time for this restriction is to be imposed. That is my reason for moving this amendment.

DEBATES	February 2, 1968


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member admit that the level of maximum rates and not the detailed rates must be determined by the council?


Gilles Grégoire: Evidently, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree to have the maximum rates determined by the council and if the directors of a television station want to increase their rates further, they would then have to state their reasons for doing so. If a television station, for example, decides to broadcast cultural programs which are extremely costly that could justify increased rates for commercial advertisements. Is that what the hon. member for Kamloops mean? If such is the case, I entirely agree with him.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the question introduced by the hon. member for Lapointe raises the subject of whether the regulatory authority is to be a price setting agency. It seems to me that is a very important principle which is worthy of debate, but not at this point when we are dealing with this subclause. There is one aspect of it, however, that does concern me. We have been concerned about the monopoly control of media in this country. There is no problem in this connection in the large centres where there are newspapers and more than one television or radio station.
It seems to me there could be a danger in some of the smaller centres in which there is only one television station. Access to this station could be denied to a political candidate or a person in business either by refusing to sell time or quoting that person discriminatory rates. I think we should be concerned about this. Is there anything in the legislation whereby a person who is treated that way could have recourse to the authority if he met with an outright denial of time or if he could prove the station owner had set a price on the time which was not the same as that charged to others and was such as to discourage him? We do have to face the fact that some people have a monopoly on television broadcasting in certain areas. It seems to me that everyone who applies for the use of time should be treated equally. Is there anything in the bill which would provide some course of action to a person who felt he was not justly dealt with by a station owner?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot think of any place, Mr. Chairman, that there would be any such provision unless it would be in the renewal of licence provision. I think quicker action
February 2, 1968

would probably be gained by recourse to the public press or other media to indicate this situation. No doubt such action would result in the council or commission getting in touch with the offending station. I do not believe there would be anything in the act which would permit definite sanctions except at the time of the renewal of the licence. I do not believe anyone should for a moment discount that provision because it is a rather important factor. In the first place, the public outcry which my hon. friend or anyone like him who was discriminated against would make, would be very considerable. This kind of discriminatory action would, I think, be something which would cause an individual not to have his licence renewed. He would have to have very strong justification for the action and I doubt that he could find justification for it.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about that amendment which seems very logical to me.
Mr. Chairman, there are obvious, I would even say gross, abuses in that field at the present time. Some television and radio stations which have no competition are asking very high prices from some and lower prices from others.
To put something on tape, for instance, some television stations might charge up to $300 while others will charge $35 for the same work. It is the same thing for television and radio programs. It is a matter of viewing hours and there are certainly gross abuses there. Since there is no competition or hardly any, as stated by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I think that it would be very important to find a way to prevent the private stations which have no competitors from exploiting the public.
The public is often exploited; quite often, when we want to use this mass media, we are told: Well, my dear Sir, for you it is such and such a price; you can take it or leave it. For another person, it may be cheaper, but for you, you must take it or leave it.
There are certainly manifest abuses and I think the hon. member for Lapointe is right in moving such an amendment. I think this amendment should be considered thoroughly. It would be logical also that the government should control the air waves and the use of certain wave-lengths, because of the scarcity of frequencies. I think the prices also should be controlled as well as increases. When the owners of such mass media increase their prices, the commission should be informed
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and the price increases should not be allowed if they are not warranted or if they are prohibitive.
The commission should have some control. There are certainly some abuses. Private initiative is good. We agree 100 per cent with private enterprise, but we do not want it to go too far; when it is harmful to the community, or to certain institutions, it is time for the state to step in. Then it is the responsibility of the state to intervene, under these conditions, and I am sure something can be done, because abuses are apparent. Somebody ought to deal with such abuses. The rent control board has been set up and yet, the situation in this field is much less serious than in the broadcasting field.
There are all types of controls, but there is no control possible without competition. As far as rents are concerned, there is much competition. If accommodations prove unsatisfactory, there are others to be found.
But in the present instance, if we are dissatisfied, we must yield or do without, because there is nothing else. I feel therefore that, as far as public services are concerned, the people should be in a position to make reasonable and proper use thereof.
Some individuals wield such power that they can tell someone they do not like too much: the price is so much, take it or leave it. There is no discussion possible, there is nothing to be done. Then, I believe the commission should intervene in those cases and I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Lapointe. I also ask the members of this house-it seems very important to me-to make an effort to find a solution to this problem.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would consider amending his motion to provide that the commission be empowered to set a maximum instead of setting a whole tariff? If that were done I think it would find acceptance here. It does seem to me to be rather dangerous to ask the commission to establish all rates at all levels for radio and television stations.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be most difficult to ask the council to set a maximum rate, because conditions vary from one area to the next, from one station to another.
February 2. 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Some stations will produce very good programs which, obviously, will cost more than showing films. That is why no general rule can be set.
In some areas, it would be more expensive, because ratings are higher, the T.V. antenna is more powerful and more expensive and the operating costs are heavier. In other areas, where the studios are small and simple and the population is less, where the antenna is less powerful then, rates can be quite different.
I am quite ready to examine the suggestion of the member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) that a maximum should be set, but I believe that in practice it will be difficult to make rates uniform, because the television stations do not have uniform quality in their programs. Nor do they have studios of uniform quality nor uniform power on their antennas nor uniform operating expenses.
However, I believe that if we can follow the example of the transport commission which does not set a maximum rate but requires the telephone companies such as the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to justify the need to increase the rates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty, as I see it, is that in the first place the bill does not provide that the board will establish a tariff or schedule of fees that stations may charge. If that were provided, when stations applied for an increase in their fees they would have to justify it. However, the first stage is not there. According to the bill as I understand it, no power is given to set an initial schedule of fees for stations. Therefore, what we are suggesting to the hon. member is this. Would he modify his amendment to give the board power to set schedules of maximum fees, leaving stations free to be competitive at levels below the maximum but requiring them to apply for any increase over the maximum?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I accept
readily the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). It is true that nothing of the kind is provided for in the bill for the future council. Since it has yet to be created, I feel certain provisions should be included in the bill. I am willing to accept all the suggestions of the hon. member for Kamloops for he has far more experience than I in that field. We could, as he suggests, start by setting
[Mr. Gregoire.)
maximum rates, even if later on the companies are required to justify the increases they request.
I am willing to change the amendment in the way suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: If the
committee agrees, we could ask the hon.
member for Lapointe to revise his amendment accordingly.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Lapointe is looking over the amendment I should like to ask a question on paragraph (vii), which reads:
-with the approval of the Treasury Board, fixing the schedules of fees to be paid by licensees and providing for the payment thereof,
I have often wondered just what revenue is received from the licensing of radio and television stations. Is the minister in a position to give the committee any information in this regard? How is that revenue determined? Can she give some examples of the amounts that various licensees have to pay for the use of the airwaves for periods of time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not happen to know but I could find out for the hon. member.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether this clause includes the licensing of community antenna television and the establishment of fees for such service. If so, what arrangements are made to cover closed circuit television broadcasts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, closed circuit television does not pick programs out of the air and therefore is not covered by the broadcasting legislation. If it did do so then it would be covered. These licensing arrangements apply to all broadcasting undertakings that are covered, including C.A.T.V.


William Arnold Peters: Is it not the intention of the minister to cover closed circuit community antenna services as well as those that pick programs out of the air? Also, may I ask how extensive are the regulations that are proposed in connection with this fight that has been going on for a long time about United States programs that can be picked up close to the border but which can only be received in Timiskaming, for example,
February 2, 19G8	COMMONS
through a community antenna system? Apparently these antennas can reproduce a fairly weak signal which is then fed into a closed circuit.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there does not appear to be any constitutional basis upon which the federal government can legislate with respect to closed circuit television.


William Arnold Peters: There may not be many closed circuit television receivers in my area, but for the last 12 years there has been one that does rebroadcast programs. Let me give an example. It can take another station's program and rebroadcast it on a closed circuit, using its own camera to dub in an advertisement in the middle of the program. Therefore I presume that some regulations will be in effect and I am wondering how extensive they will be. To date there has not appeared to be any such regulation. The Department of Transport will look into cases of interference or where there is an outright theft of another station's program for advertising purposes, but it seems to me there must be some regulation in this regard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, two of the questions that have been considered are, first of all, program integrity; you are not to use somebody else's advertising on your own programs. Second, at present one must carry the national program that is available in the area. Aside from those two considerations, I can say nothing more. I have been visited by C.A.T.V. operators and both of these matters were discussed. They were well aware that these would be two of the requirements. In addition, because their operation is quite different from that of an ordinary broadcasting station the regulations will be tailor made to suit their operations instead of having general regulations made applicable to all.


William Arnold Peters: Is it the intention of the government to limit the number of programs that can be picked up and rebroadcast in a given area? That has been one difficulty. In addition, many of these stations are not licensed by the Department of Transport. Are they now going to be able to carry whatever programs they can pick up by means of a community antenna system and rebroadcast them, in some cases on closed circuit television, without a licence?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid I am somewhat confused by my hon. friend. I said we do not grant licences for closed circuits except with
DEBATES	6313
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting respect to C.A.T.V. operations which take programs from the air. Those operators will have to apply to the commission and receive their licences, and in the conditions of the licences will be the conditions that the commission feels are necessary. I am sure that program integrity will be one of the conditions and I am sure that the requirement to carry the national service will be another, minimum condition.


William Arnold Peters: In the close circuit system I am talking about the company already has a studio and instead of using the broadcasting system it uses the community antenna which is already hooked up to certain homes. In other words, the people who own the station will have for themselves another channel. In the case I am thinking of they will have the channel which they have already used for some period of time and they will have another channel which they will use for commercial purposes. Is the minister saying that a community antenna service such as I have just described will not be licensed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not sure if I understand what the hon. member is saying. If the hon. member is saying that these people are actually broadcasting from their studio, then of course, they will have to get a licence for that kind of broadcasting undertaking.


William Arnold Peters: But they are not broadcasting over the air. This is not a television station but a service provided by means of coaxial cable. That cable is already carrying one or two channels to the community antenna. The studio will transmit over the coaxial cable and they will not, in that sense, be transmitting over the air. That is the situation I am referring to.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, just a few words in reply to the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters).
I will tell him that all the closed circuit stations now in operation have to hold a licence. Not a single station is now operating without a licence, even if quite often the owner must wait six months or a year to get his licence. I think that all those who want to go in for closed circuit broadcasting in Canada must get a licence issued by the transport commission.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, clause 16 is not one of the clauses that I asked yesterday to
63X4
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting be stood. I am indebted to the committee for having stood clauses 3, 19, 28 and 47, as I desired yesterday afternoon. Since clause 16 was stood I should like to make a few comments in support of the hon. member for Lapointe, inasmuch as he is endeavouring to control the advertising rates charged on television or radio stations.
From listening to him carefully it is quite clear that his agile and alert mind has picked up a point which has not been considered by those who framed this radio and broadcasting bill in quiet and had it printed and put before members of parliament to push through. But I believe the hon. member for Lapointe is weeping on cold shoulders, or should I say, casting his message on stony ground.
I am sure that when the hon. member for Lapointe was attending the Jesuit college in Quebec he must have heard our Lord's parable about the sower. A sower cast some seed on fertile ground and it sprang up and multiplied a hundredfold. But some seed fell among thorns and the thorns sprang up and choked the seed. Other seed fell on stony ground and was burned by the sun. If the hon. member for Lapointe intimates that the holder of a television licence is in a monopoly position in setting advertising rates, he is 100 per cent correct. But that is the situation you put yourself in when you grant monopoly television licences.
Many markets can only support one television licence. The hon. member for Kamloops stood in his place just now and said that the competition of the market place will control the rates as one television station competes with another. That applies to Toronto, Montreal and some other centres where there is more than one television station. But in the advertising world, if a monopoly situation develops in some centre the situation is different. Take Pembroke, Ontario, which is handy and has only got one television station. If the hon. member for Lapointe thinks that in a monopoly situation the advertising rates are going to go sky high, unless controlled, I feel he is on fair ground in that assumption.
The hon. member for Lapointe seems to have overlooked the important fact that an advertiser does not have to use the local television station in Pembroke. There is a newspaper there and you can use sign boards, or individually painted signs and put them in store windows, or you can have them with posts in the centre. Or you can get advertisements printed by some publisher and mail them through the post office. There are other


competitive ways of getting advertising done. If you do not use the television station the owner will lower his rates so that you will leave these other forms of competitive media and give him the advertising revenue that he sees going to other avenues.
But if my hon. friend for Lapointe is intimating that the cabinet might take some action to control the advertising rates on television stations when they are in a monopoly position, he is really sowing his seed on stony ground, especially when you consider what has happened to the general public at airports in the carriage of passengers to the city that the airport is serving. On Monday of this week I was on a train for some hours with a member of the present cabinet. During the long train ride-I was on the train because no airplanes were flying that day-the cabinet minister remarked to me that he had recently flown from Montreal to Toronto and he had not been met as prearranged and so had taken the monopoly cab service, so magnificently provided by the Department of Transport, to downtown Toronto. He informed me that he pretty nearly had to wire his bank to see if he had enough money to cover the cheque he had to issue to pay for the ride. I said to this cabinet minister: "What are you kicking about? The Minister of Transport okayed these rates and nobody can cast any aspersions on the fairness of any rates when this cabinet okays them, I'm sure." All he did was smile.
When the hon. member for Lapointe says there should be some control over the rates charged for advertising by television stations in a monopoly situation, I have to agree with him. But I must point out that in the advertising world there are competitive avenues of advertising open to the businessman. He does not have to use the local television station.


Gilles Grégoire: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I certainly will, to you.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You are going steady, you two, aren't you?


Gilles Grégoire: You will admit also that the minister who used a means of transportation which has the monopoly between the Toronto airport and his home had other ways of getting home. He did not have to take the official limousine. He could have walked, that is another way. Therefore, it is the same thing in the field of advertising.
February 2, 1963


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the hon. member for Lapointe has an alert and agile mind and he gave us an example of this just now. I intended to refer to the fact that there was a competitive source of transportation available to the cabinet minister. He could have stood at Malton for about three-quarters of an hour after telephoning for a taxi to come and get him or he could have walked the 14 miles to downtown and save the money.
But I wanted to make some reference to the statement by the hon. member for Kamloops, who referred to the free play of the market place. That phrase was used a good deal on this side of the house when we were setting up the consumer affairs department. The free play of the marketplace would keep prices down; the cost of living would fall and everybody would be happy, happy, happy from now on because we have a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It seems too bad that the hon. member for Lapointe should be the one to put his finger on such a glaring oddity as this, that a monopoly television operator in one of the smaller centres of Canada can charge as much as he likes. Now the suggestion is made that we cannot set rates but can only specify a maximum figure. I have been in business long enough to know that the maximum rate is always the only one at which an operator can make a profit; anything lower and he would be running in the red.
Something should be done to deal with this question and I admire the hon. member for Lapointe for putting his finger on the spot where action is called for. If the cabinet is disposed to accept the suggestion by the hon. member for Lapointe that there should be control over the rates charged by television stations, I hope my hon. friends will accept the argument that there should be control exercised over the exorbitant rates charged by monopoly cab operators at airports. At the present time the Minister of Transport is the only authority that can exercise control over these rates which are so high that, as one cabinet minister said to me recently, one almost has to wire the bank to see whether one has enough money to pay the fare demanded. I do not know how many hon. members are aware that it costs as much to take a monopoly cab from Malton airport to the eastern boundary of Scarborough as it does to fly from Toronto to Ottawa.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have listened to this not very honourable member ad nauseam and I would ask that he be requested to stick to the point he is supposed to be discussing. No one in the committee is interested in what he is saying. We may or may not be in agreement with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe but it has nothing to do with taxi fares out of Malton. We have spent two and a half weeks on this subject and if the hon. member had his way we would still be on subclause (a) of clause 2. If he does not want the country's business to move ahead, everyone else in this chamber does, so he should at least restrict himself to considering the clause under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Schreyer:: The amendment which the hon. member for Lapointe offers is a very basic and fundamental one. It is the kind of amendment which at first glance I would feel inclined to support and I suppose that a good many others here feel inclined to do likewise. However, I suggest that since the amendment involves a consideration of such basic importance we should not be placed in the position of voting hastily on it and I would ask the Secretary of State whether she would agree to hold this matter in abeyance until Monday so that the full implications of what the hon. member has suggested might be considered.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I have considered this, the department has considered it and so have other people. It does not simply spring out of nowhere. There has been no suggestion from anyone responsible at any time that there should be a scale of fees. Some members of this house have been making speeches for the last couple of weeks comparing broadcasting stations with newspapers. There has never been any suggestion that we should impose scales of fees on newspapers or magazines. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for York-Humber would scream even louder than he has been screaming so far if any attempt were made to do so.
As I say, there has been no suggestion that a whole new structure should be set up and that responsibility should be placed on the board to operate a tariff structure. In any case it would be virtually impossible. There are hundreds of television stations and even more radio stations across the country. We would have to impose individual tariffs on each one of them and the schedule would have to change as circumstances change. The
6316	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting present Board of Broadcast Governors has not been so structured and has not been provided with the kind of money necessary to do that. There has been no such proposal from anyone either inside or outside the broadcasting industry and no pressure for such a tariff to be set up.
Perhaps I might answer the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I am informed that last year gross revenue from licence fees amounted to $2,045,245. The licence fee schedule is as follows: For stations with gross revenues below $200,000, 1 per cent of that revenue; for stations with gross revenues exceeding $200,000, a flat $2,000 plus 1J per cent of the amount by which $200,000 is exceeded.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Since the minister made a direct reference to me-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yes, if it gives me the floor at the moment. The question of privilege is that you did not force the minister to withdraw her remark about the "not so honourable member for York-Humber". I am referring to the not so honourable Secretary of State. She told the committee I would be screaming louder than I have been if we were to set rates for advertising in newspapers by government regulation. She made a comparison between newspapers and television stations. I should like to point out that in the newspaper world no government licence is required to participate in the game. The situation in circumstances where one can operate only under a government licence, which means a monopoly, is entirely different from the circumstances in which anyone can start a newspaper whenever and wherever he wants to do so.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The Chair does not recognize those remarks as raising a question of privilege and they are not relevant to the point under study at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber were pertinent, in that the field of radio and television constitutes a monopoly and a state licence is necessary to broadcast programs.
[Miss LaMarsh.l
DEBATES	February 2, 1968
Now, the Secretary of State says that if we had to create a board to control prices or set rates for radio and television stations, that would involve a great deal of work, since the situation changes in each case and there are many radio and television stations.
On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out two things to the Secretary of State: first, I would like to give as an example the trucking industry. There are many more trucking enterprises than radio or television companies. Yet there is a transport commission which sets prices for trucking enterprises in each case, according to the distance travelled and the area involved.
This could, in the trucking industry, mean twenty times more work than it would in the field of broadcasting. However, it is done in order to prevent a monopoly from exploiting the public, even if there are perhaps ten times as many trucking companies as there are television or radio stations. That is why I say to the hon. Secretary of State that her argument that this would mean to much work does not hold when it is a question of protecting the public against a monopoly allowed by law.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Secretary of State said that the problem received consideration but that there are no provisions dealing with this in the bill. I think it would not be difficult to include such a provision. Otherwise, broadcasting will be the only field where licences are issued and where there is no price control board. This would be the only field where competition would be limited by virtue of a licence, without there being at the same time a board which establishes rates.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Now, if the minister feels that this should not be the responsibility of the Canadian radio commission, it could be entrusted to the transport commission. Since it is the Department of Transport which, in the end, has to pass on the plans submitted for a radio or television station, let the transport commission deal with the matter of rates tariffs to be set for private radio and television stations, just as it deals, for instance, with the matter of the rates of the Bell Telephone Company or other independent telephone companies.
Such is the principle according to which, when the state restricts competition, it must also restrict the rates of those monopolies to prevent them from taking advantage of the public.
February 2, 1968

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I think that the argument of the Secretary of State does not hold for the two above-mentioned reasons. In the first place, it would not involve so much work since the transport commission does it for transportation companies which are more numerous than radio and television stations. Then, it is the only field where rates are unlimited while the government is restricting competition.
I hope that the Secretary of State will accept at least the principle involved, even though afterwards she may hand over the control to the council.
That is why, at the request of the hon. members for Kamloops and Halifax (Messrs. Fulton and McCleave), I changed my amendment by adding a third subclause to clause 16 which reads as follows:
(3) (a) The council will be authorized to establish a maximum scale for the rates and tariffs charged by the broadcasters or licencees. The council shall hold public meetings to consider any application for increases in the rates and tariffs charged by the broadcasters or licensees unless authorized by the council following such public hearings.


William Arnold Peters: If this kind of amendment is not accepted I wonder how the minister intends to handle the sort of situation which developed in northern Ontario where a private community antenna operator got a licence in an area very remote from a broadcasting station. People subscribing to his service were charged a $200 connection fee and had to pay $5 per month rental. If a family moved out of a house the incoming family also had to pay the $200 connection fee, and one instance was reported to me of a house which changed occupancy five times in a year and each time the $200 fee was charged. When we give such a person a licence I think we have an obligation to protect his customers. The situation has improved following the installation of a C.B.C. repeater station, and CFCL has installed a satellite in the Hearst area. Originally Port Arthur and Fort William had to supply the coverage through community antenna. The $200 fee was an unreasonable charge. If a maximum is not imposed then an unscrupulous person will have the right to charge whatever the traffic will bear.
My experience with television has not been that bad. A television station operator charges for national advertising on the basis of audience coverage and there is another rate for local advertising. But in northern Canada such an operator could eliminate competition
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting by the rates he charges, raising them or lowering them to suit his own purposes. It does not seem unreasonable to me to stipulate a maximum connection fee and a maximum monthly rate for C.A.T.V., and I would not object if the maximum set in northern areas were twice as high as the average in other areas. Prior to this the government had no control over such rates, and I know that the Department of Transport would have been glad to have some kind of control to prevent such abuses taking place. In fact there was no control until the C.B.C. or some other entrepreneur provided alternate service.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member should not forget that for the first time in this bill there is provision for conditions to be put on licences. Almost any condition which is germane to a particular situation can be inserted. There is also provision to impose certain monetary penalties for the breach of conditions attached to licences. Previously, in the period between an operator obtaining a licence and having to renew it nothing could be done in this respect. In a situation such as described by the hon. member, where there may be numerous complaints, a condition could be attached to a licence covering the connection fee and if this condition were not observed the operator could lose his licence or be penalized in some other way. But to set tariffs for each individual C.A.T.V. operator, particularly considering the way C.A.T.V. systems have proliferated in the last few years, would not be the proper step.
Hon. members may have seized on this proposed idea as something new but I think they should stop and think about it. Many of the experts in this field, particularly those least friendly to the C.A.T.V. operators, namely the C.A.B. people, would like to scrunch them down, and in turn the C.A.T.V. operators would like to scrunch down private broadcasters.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I point out that once again the Secretary of State shows she does not understand C.A.T.V. operations. She states that the C.A.B. wants to scrunch the C.A.T.V. people, whatever that means. This is true enough, but C.A.T.V. operators do not want to scrunch the television operators because it is from them that they get the programs they sell to the public. I wish she understood C.A.T.V.


Mr. Barnett:: The point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming is worthy of attention by the committee. I am interested in the
6318	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting explanation of the situation given by the Secretary of State. If I understand it correctly, a definition of what constitutes a broadcasting undertaking is before us in a way that we have not had it defined since the establishment of community antenna television systems.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe deals with the charges for advertising by broadcasters in the radio and television field. I certainly agree that there does not seem to have been any serious interest in many quarters in setting up a tariff structure in this area. On the other hand, many of us have been aware of abuses on the part of the community antenna television systems in various parts of the country. Heretofore this has not been a matter under the control of any regulatory broadcasting authority.
I believe the suggestion of the Secretary of State that there is provision for conditions to be attached to licences, if it is germane to the question of hook-up fees, monthly rates and so on, should be gone into pretty carefully by the regulatory body to see how they can deal with this matter in laying down the conditions of the licence. Many persons claim that what has in certain instances been a real abuse of a monopoly situation should not be allowed to continue under the aegis of the public authority which is being set up by parliament. I would be content for the present at least to wait and see whether the procedure suggested by the Secretary of State could be developed to meet the situation brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State tells us that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe is not new to her and that this matter has been fully considered by herself and by the officials of her department. There is no reason for us to doubt that. However, even to those members of the house who were members of the broadcasting committee it comes as a bolt out of the blue. It certainly would appear to have great ramifications and implications. Yet it is brought before us as sort of spontaneous ejaculation which we should deal with here and now. I suggest it would not be asking too much to request that this matter be held in abeyance until Monday.
We have had some debate concerning the necessity and/or desirability of this proposal.

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
At first glance this would seem to be a desirable course of action to take inasmuch as there are quite a number of smaller cities and larger towns in Canada with only one television station which has a monopoly. One can argue, of course, that advertisers are not necessarily at a disadvantage because they can resort to other media such as the press, handbills and so on, as the hon. member for York-Humber has suggested. It is true that if there is not intramedia competition one can point to the intermedia competition and say that someone wishing to rent time for the purpose of political broadcasting can always resort to another means of communication. I am wondering how realistic that kind of argument is.
I do not wish to take up much time because I realize the hon. lady is becoming impatient. I certainly do not blame her. However, in this instance I hope she will be lenient and allow this matter to be held over so that it can be considered properly. If we must vote on the amendment this afternoon I suppose I will have to vote against it. Much as I like the principle of the idea, I would have to vote against it simply on the basis that something as important as this should not be dealt with so casually.
There is another argument in respect of the amendment which I believe should be considered. If we attempt to give the council regulatory powers in this regard I see certain difficulties. If we stipulate that the council shall have the power to set maximum fees, this could be construed as an invitation to do so. If we do not do that and say instead that the council shall have the power to adjudicate in respect of rate increases after the coming into force of this bill, which would be another way to deal with the matter, then what is to stop the television interests in these one-channel or one-station towns increasing their rates in the interval? Finally, it has been suggested by one of my colleagues that if we attempt to regulate it might be that the major advertisers would seek and probably make arrangements with the television station owner for a bonus system and so on. There are different ways by which to get around any regulation. I would hope that the hon. lady would see the sense in holding this over at least until Monday.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I feel the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) made a reasonable and moderate appeal to the Secretary of State, asking her to allow that
February 2, 1S68

clause to stand. Obviously, we shall not dispose of this bill today. Therefore, there is no objection to suspending the study of that clause or to deferring it until later. When the Secretary of State asked yesterday to pass quickly all the non-contentious clauses, in an attempt to speed up the discussion of the bill, we readily agreed, even though it was done very hastily and it did not seem to us to be the best procedure. I wonder why the Secretary of State does not agree to the suggestion just made, all the more so because the discussion on this bill will no doubt continue on Monday.
If the hon. Secretary of State would accept to co-operate, I am convinced that she would receive in return the same co-operation from the members.
Mr. Chairman, a great many points have not been well explained. With the proper explanations, perhaps everyone would be in favour of that amendment. The hon. Secretary of State tells us that the proposition was considered by her officials and turned down. It would be interesting to know why, and the hon. minister has not told us. We do not know why the officials have turned down such an idea. What I find most surprising, is the fact that the minister seems to think that it would require a whole new administrative structure. But the same administrative structure is found in all the areas where there is a monopoly, and sometimes a larger staff is needed. Let us take, for instance, the field of truck transportation where the structure is considerably more complex than that which would be necessary in this case.
That is why I think that the amendment should be accepted, and I ask the hon. Secretary of State to tell us whether or not she is prepared to accept this matter to be put off until Monday?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this bill has already, I think, taken more time than anything except the flag debate and possibly the debate on the Canada Pension Plan. My hon. friend is quite wrong when he says I suggested that we should pass the non-contentious clauses. That suggestion came from the house leader of the Conservative party, not from me. I acceded to it with the hope that we would get one or two of them passed.
It may be true that we will be talking about this on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, or perhaps for another four
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting or five weeks. The hon. member apparently has nothing else to do than impede the business of the country. He has said clearly that it is his intention to destroy the country and he is now starting, with the assistance of the hon. member for York-Humber, to destroy parliament. This is a pretty good way of doing so, but he is not going to have my co-operation in his efforts. So far as I am concerned, I do not see any reason why a bill which has been studied publicly and privately for almost four years now should be stood further.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the remarks of the hon. Secretary of State. I am not in the habit of quibbling about anything whatsoever, with so nice a lady. I would rather capitulate when I find myself in that kind of situation. However, with regard to the bill, I should like to add a few remarks.
I noticed that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) said that, at first glance, he finds the bill quite acceptable, and that the only reason which could induce him to vote against it, is that he does not know all its implications.
First of all, I should like to point out to him that the field of radio and television is the only one where, while there is a state-imposed monopoly, rates do not come under regulations. To my mind, this is already a sufficient reason to at least accept the principle that the state, having set up by law monopolies in certain areas of the country, should now prevent exploitation of the public by regulating the prices.
The member for Springfield also wonders what would happen in the field of business. I would like to tell him that, in the areas with no competition and where owners of television stations enjoy a practical monopoly, where prices are high, only the great nation-wide companies operating throughout the country and able to provide an adequate budget can use television for advertising. The small producers, the small businessmen, the small industrialists do not have the same means, so they cannot meet excessive prices.
One might say that all they have to do is select another medium of advertising. Possibly, but today, in the business world, the winner is the one who uses all advertising media. If an advertising medium as important
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting as television is eliminated, if the small businessmen are deprived thereof, this means that they are being discriminated against and monopolies created by the state through legislation are allowed to crush the small operator who cannot use television programs.
Television stations set their rates rather arbitrarily, according to the ratings. When there are two television stations in an area, rates become competitive and are less likely to increase.
When there is only one station, rates are set arbitrarily and small businessmen are the ones hard hit. I could give examples of abusive rates of television stations. Devious methods are used and a board could prevent such abuse.
In the field of political programs, for instance, the television station in Quebec will no longer sell 15-minute periods for $300. They prefer to divide those 15 minutes in three periods of five minutes, each selling for $200. Thus divided the 15-minute period costs $600, whereas if sold as a whole it would bring in only $300. They refuse to sell 15-minute periods even if all the political parties were willing to pay for uninterrupted periods. All parties without exception have to accept those conditions because during an election campaign the owners of those stations say: Let us get the most out of this while it lasts. And since the going is good and they want to take advantage of it, they find a way to increase the prices.
I know that at the Quebec television station, for example, simply to screen a film or a video-tape of 15 minutes, they charge $80. This is a means of overcharging, and even if that is not acceptable, there is no alternative because there is only one television station in Quebec which sells time to political programs and it is a private station.
The C.B.C. does not sell such time. There is no choice; people are forced to submit to a monopoly created by legislation and by a federal government council. This monopoly is allowed to exist while in every other field, monopolies have been prohibited without there being at the same time limitations on prices to prevent the fleecing of the public.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Secretary of State told us, a while ago, that for the first time the bill contains a provision allowing the Canadian radio-television commission to set up regulations authorizing it, when licences come up for renewal, to impose fines, penalties and even to suspend licences when the regulations have not be complied with.

I hope that it will be possible to include in the regulations of the Canadian radio-television commission a provision on maximum fees, on rates and the conditions to be complied with before increasing the rates for commercials.
If the Secretary of State were tell us that there is a method to include in the regulations of this Canadian radio-television commission such a principle or such a notion, then we would be happy. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. Is the Secretary of State agreeable to the inclusion, in these regulations of the commission, of a provision dealing with increases in fees by the radio and television stations?
Then, we could simply confirm the principle that the commission is empowered to make regulations. Would the minister accept such an amendment enabling the commission to an enact such regulations?
I see that the minister will not listen to anything further on this bill. Well, at least I was able to make my suggestion, but I am opposed to the fact that a state monopoly is allowed without at the same time setting limits to the exploitation of the public.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, there is one word of subclause (iii) of clause 16 I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. Clause 16 reads:
In furtherance of Its objects, the council, on the recommendation of the executive committee, may-
It then sets out that the council may make regulations applicable to persons holding broadcasting licences, or to persons holding broadcasting licences of one or more classes respecting, as stated in subclause (iii)-
-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,
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am a member of the broadcasting committee and I well remember the lengthy discussion which took place on the white paper which was put before us by the Department of the Secretary of State some time ago, and on which we were supposed to express our opinions. As hon. members know, the committee endorsed 19 out of 21 paragraphs of
February 2, 1968
the white paper. An argument arose on subclause (d) of clause 2 of the bill which reads:
It is hereby declared that
(d) the programming provided by the Canadian Broadcasting System should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy, -
The suggestion was made that the subclause should read:
-should provide equitable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy, -
A lengthy discussion ensued in the committee on the use of the words "equitable" and "reasonable". With reference to clause 16 (b)(iii) I should like to refer to the political argument which developed. Half a dozen members of the broadcasting committee referred to the situation in the United States where there is a regulation affecting T.V. stations and radio, according to which all candidates for the presidency must be given equal time on both these media. I should like to refer to a specific instance during an election when there were two or three of what are generally called nuisance candidates running for the presidency of the United States of America. One of them at least was straightforward enough to state that the reason he was running for the presidency of the United States was that only in this way would he be able to appear on the national network. This strikes people as being absolutely ridiculous, namely that a man who might be able to garner only about a thousand votes in all of the United States should be given equal time to present whatever platform he claims to have advocated, as against such historical organizations as the Republican and Democratic parties. The discussion with regard to the word "reasonable" on subclause 2(d) went on for a long time, but at the end the committee agreed that the word "reasonable" was much more appropriate.


Albert Béchard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. At the present time the committee has before it the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe. I believe the hon. member for York-Humber is totally out of order.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I will ask the Clerk to read the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
[And a Clerk at the table having read the amendment as follows:]

The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) moves that clause 16 be amended by adding the following subclause:
3 (a) The council will be authorized to set a maximum scale for the rates and fees charged by broadcasters or licensees.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, subclause 3 has two paragraphs, (a) and (b).
[And the Clerk at the table completed the reading of the amendment, as follows]
3 (b) The council shall hold public meetings for considering any application for increases in the rates and tariffs charged by broadcasters or licensees. No rate or tariff may be increased by the broadcasters or licensees unless authorized by the council following such public hearings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 38.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, early in the debate I indicated in private to the Secretary of State that I thought there was one serious lack in the bill in that, under its terms we as members of parliament would no longer have any means of influencing the new broadcasting authority either directly or indirectly, and that we could not convey public opinion to the broadcasting authority. Therefore I felt it was absolutely necessary for us to provide somewhere in the bill for the formation of regional advisory councils. My suggestion was that this provision should be made in clause 2 of the bill where the objectives of the broadcasting system are outlined, but my suggestion was not accepted by the minister and consequently I did not press for an amendment to clause 2.
However, upon reflection I am more convinced than ever that we would be remiss in

6322	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting our duties in the house if we did not establish some sort of regional councils. The white paper on broadcasting made reference at page 9 to the feasibility and desirability of setting up regional broadcasting councils to advise upon representations made by the general public with regard to programming. I suggest that if we are to provide some means to the public whereby the force of public opinion may make itself felt, we must add a provision after subclause 16 (c).
I therefore propose the following amendment:
That clause 16 be amended by adding after subclause (c) an additional subclause (d) as follows:
"(d) establish regional advisory councils in order that it shall have the benefit of the advice of as broad as possible a range of Canadian public opinion."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not believe any of us here would deny, or very few would deny that over the years there have been abuses committed by our national broadcasting system, especially in recent years in the area of public affairs. I do not intend to discuss that subject at length because it has been discussed at length by members during the last few days. It is my firm conviction that the C.B.C. has immunized itself from the democratic process. I ask members, especially those on the government side, to hear me out on my proposal. The amendment does not change the bill in any way. The type of regional council envisaged would be set up in the five geographical regions in Canada, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. Members would be appointed for two years. They would not receive remuneration. They would be named by a number of organizations which would range from religious groups, educational groups, the labour movement, management, agriculture, political parties and provincial governments to any other major group of public opinion which the broadcasting commission deemed suitably reflected Canadian public opinion.
The advisory council which I envisage obviously would not have the legal power to force the C.B.C. to do anything. It would be our assurance, as members of parliament, that we have not thrown away all protection for the Canadian public in this bill. In fact this is what we would be doing if we passed this bill without an appropriate amendment to establish these regional advisory councils. If we did so we would be, in effect, saying to this broadcasting authority: You have the

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
power in clause 16 with respect to such other matters as you deem necessary for the furtherance of these objectives, to set up these advisory councils. However, I feel that we must do more than that. We must clearly set forth that it is our desire that these regional councils should be set up.
If the minister would go along with it, I would be prepared to settle for one national advisory council. My argument against a national advisory council would be that it would not be possible to reflect adequately the linguistic make-up of the country on that type of council. It would not be possible, for example, to provide representation for native peoples such as would be the case with a regional council.
There are a number of defects in a national advisory council which I think could be overcome with regional councils. I do not want to take up too much time of the committee, but I am convinced it is essential that somewhere in the bill we have an indication that this house insists that such councils be set up. This amendment would make it clear that we expect the commission to establish such regional councils. If this amendment is accepted it would be necessary to make further amendments later in the bill setting out the details as to how the regional advisory councils are to be made up. Perhaps these amendments could be made following clause 21. This would depend on whether or not my amendment is accepted.
The principle of advisory councils has been accepted and put into effect in the United Kingdom, a country whose national broadcasting system is the world's outstanding example of impartiality. In the federal Republic of Germany, with the experience of the world's most appalling dictatorship, they came to the conclusion early that democracy could best be protected if the national broadcasting system were subject to certain checks and safeguards. A system of regional advisory councils based on each of the German states is in effect in Germany and is working well.
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters in what I believe is part of their submission to the standing committee, said they believed that the regulating body should have regional offices and be responsible for the organization of advisory councils composed of individuals and interested organizations. Then they make reference to the fact that the white paper mentioned the possibility of advisory councils. They go on from there to state that the B.B.G. would recommend favourably on this
February 2, 1968

proposal if in the light of experience it felt its own arrangements were inadequate in this respect.
This is not good enough. As members of this house, I suggest it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure there is some means in the Broadcasting Act whereby public opinion can exert itself on the broadcasting authority. If public opinion cannot do so through parliament, how else is it going to do so? Are we going to leave it up to this organization entirely to decide whether or not it shall hear the public? There are provisions for the commission to hear complaints, but this is not good enough. I strongly urge the minister to reconsider her opposition to the concept of regional advisory councils. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, I have taken the time of the committee this afternoon. I hope members on this side of the house as well as the other will support the suggestion I have just made.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on this amendment presented by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie. I believe the idea presented in his amendment is a practical and worthwhile one. I have spoken a number of times in this debate about the necessity of providing in this legislation a means by which the management of the publicly owned broadcasting system could assess public opinion. It is very difficult for the members of this house to do so. It is very difficult for the C.B.C. to do so directly. In fact I have been increasingly alarmed over the amount of correspondence that comes to my desk expressing frustration on the part of Canadians who write to the C.B.C. and do not even receive an acknowledgement of their letters, let alone a reasonable reply to the questions raised.
As the hon. member has just mentioned, this type of advisory council is working very well in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Germany. It was my original intention that a formal council be set up on a national basis, though not appointed by the C.B.C. or by parliament, so as to represent the various democratic organizations in society across the country.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In considering the proposal in light of this debate, and in view of our responsibility to dispose of the bill as quickly as possible, it seems to me that this type of amendment is probably more fitting at the present time. It would meet the need for a national advisory council just as well. In fact, it could even be
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting more effective because programming policy is geared not only to the national system, but must likewise be geared to regional taste as well. I think therefore that this amendment is a very practical one, as we adapt the idea of an advisory council to the Canadian scene.
I do not intend to speak at length on the amendment but I do commend it both to the committee and the minister. It has a great deal of worth in it. This amendment provides the management of the C.B.C. with a legitimate sounding board of public opinion. The creation of this body would not require great expense; the most expensive item might be holding the occasional meeting. In fact, even this item might not be expensive because I visualize the representatives on these regional councils as representatives of various organizations, and more than likely those organizations would be only too pleased to send their representatives to the council meetings at their own expense.
Some hon. members might ask where these representatives are to come from. Basically I see them coming from most of the democratic organizations in the country, such as home and school associations, university organizations, teachers federations, labour organizations and the Legion. Even representatives of civic clubs and other important and legitimate national organizations, and other private organizations, might attend. I am pleased to give my support to this amendment and I trust that the minister will see fit to accept it without prolonged debate on the worth that I feel it contains.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations on the amendment now before the committee. I will vote against if for the following reasons. First of all, I think this national council-we have now changed its name to national commission -has good representation from across Canada, in the same way as the former Board of Broadcast Governors had. That board was composed of members from every part of Canada. If this national commission is set up on the same basis, I see little reason for regional councils to be set up across a country that has a sparse population of 22 million.


Robert Norman Thompson: Might I ask the hon. member a question. How many members are on the council as constituted?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Fifteen altogether.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is it the hon. member's opinion that such a body, the members of
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting which have certain technical and financial qualifications, is able to give the necessary advice on programming that might be required?


Alfred Dryden Hales: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that there are 15 members on the national commission. In the second part of my hon. friend's question, he referred to organizations such as home and school associations and similar bodies, and I see no reason why they cannot present their views in letters, briefs or through other means to the national commission. I am one of those who feel we are beginning to have government by boards and commissions. It seems to me that every piece of legislation that comes before the house requires the appointment of a board, commission or council. I think if one is set up in this legislation, that one will be sufficient.
The hon. member who introduced the amendment spoke of the system in operation in Great Britian. Perhaps regional councils are needed in an area that is so densely populated as Britain, but I do not think regional commissions are required in this country, certainly not at this particular stage in the history of our broadcasting and television services. Therefore I would oppose the amendment.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the proposal made by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie relates to the clause that deals with the Canadian radio-television commission, as well as to this clause. The hon. member for Red Deer kept referring to the C.B.C. but the amendment relates to all broadcasting.
I should like to make one or two comments on the amendment. When the director general of the B.B.C. and the director general of the I.T.A. came to Ottawa from the United Kingdom I questioned them on this point, but I have forgotten their answers. This was November 1966 and I am afraid I have not looked at the minutes recently.
However, a perusal of the handbooks of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. indicates that there are a great many advisory bodies. They have professional advisory bodies for education and religious broadcasting, and there are also a great many regional bodies. These might be useful; I do not know. But I am against setting up bodies which become innocuous, "nothing" bodies that really do not do anything. If I could be persuaded that these advisory commissions in various parts of the country could contribute to better broadcasting in some way, then they might be worth

while, but I do not think the case for that has been proven.
There is one way we could get around this difficulty, Mr. Chairman, and this suggestion was made in the committee. Both the regulatory body and the board of directors of the C.B.C. should be encouraged to meet in different parts of Canada at different times. I know that occasionally this has been done in the past. However, I see the regulatory authority meeting sometimes in Vancouver, sometimes in Regina and sometimes in St. John's to hold a public hearing to find out what the public, either individually or through organizations, thinks about the job that is being done by the broadcasters, public and private.
The board of directors of the C.B.C. should also move around the country. They should advertise the fact that they are holding a meeting at a certain place, and they should invite the public to come and be heard. This might serve the purpose that the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie has in mind. I do know that these bodies have been set up in the United Kingdom, but how active or effective they are I do not know. I have my doubts about them.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to continue in the same vein as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), and say that the intention of the amendment moved by the member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson), strikes me as excellent, but likely to add to the clumsiness of structures which are already cumbersome as it is. The matter was discussed briefly in committee and, for that very same reason, the suggestion that regional committees be set up on a permanent basis was turned down.
I feel, as does the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, that the same object can be achieved through sittings of the Board of Broadcast Governors and the board of directors of the C.B.C., not only if those bodies give notice of their alternate sittings in various parts of the country, but if, to the contrary, notice of these sittings will be given ahead of time and the audience throughout our whole broadcasting system will be invited specifically to present grievances, make representations, and-why not?-offer its congratulations.
This too was mentioned in the committee by the representatives of both the bureau of
February 2, 1968

broadcast governors and the board of the C.B.C., and the two bodies replied to the committee that they had the intention to do so, they thought it essential to act in this way. Such an attitude would serve to avoid what the member for Burnaby-Richmond indicated that there is a risk, if we organize too heavy a superstructure, of having also a dead superstructure. If the bureau of broadcast governors and the board of the C.B.C. announce that they will meet to hear representations from the listeners, then, those who come before them will come of their own free will and not because they have been appointed. They will come because they will have something to say.
If is true that there is so much discontent over broadcasting among Canadians, we should not doubt for a second that the intermediary organizations or voluntary bodies, all kinds of associations including viewers associations will make their representations before these two bodies of their own accord, not because they have to, but because they are motivated by their own feelings and rules of conduct.
So I say that we should drop the proposition now before us in favor of a much more flexible formula and probably therefore a much more efficient one.
{English]


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to congratulate the hon. member for introducing this amendment, although I am not quite sure whether it fills the bill entirely. The amendment would seek to provide for the establishment of regional advisory councils in order that the national council shall have the benefit of the advice of as broad as possible a range of public opinion. I think there is merit in this amendment because, at the present time, we have a national council only and it is very difficult to get, shall I say, the response to certain programs or policies of the C.B.C. through the national council alone, or even through this house.
I think this amendment does provide an opportunity to improve the participation of the general public in the administration of this important legislation. As my colleague from Burnaby-Richmond says, this sort of thing has been the practice in Great Britain for a number of years. They have less geographic space to deal with but a larger population. I am in favour of doing everything possible to get the participation of the public in the administration of the laws we pass in this house.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
So far as my own constituency is concerned, I have received in the neighbourhood of 300 letters in connection with C.B.C. programs, and that sort of thing. You see, I represent a riding that is very alert to what is happening in Ottawa, and in other places. I am sure those people in the Kootenays would welcome the opportunity from time to time to bring opinions to the attention of the national council. I know this. I am sure there are many, shall I say, people who would like the opportunity to serve in this capacity on a voluntary basis. If I put it to the people I represent and said, "Are you willing to appoint a regional board to represent and reflect opinion in the Kootenays?" which is quite substantial, many of them would willingly serve on such a board on a voluntary basis, without any expense to the state. It is a matter of getting opinions, recording them, gathering them in and sending them to the national council so that they know what the reaction is in various parts of Canada. I think the hon. member has a point here and I hope some consideration will be given to the idea he has in mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie obviously feels the concern which I expressed when I spoke on the bill on December 20. I was intrigued by his phrase, if I heard it correctly, that the C.B.C. in the name of democracy has immunized itself from public opinion. I am inclined to the view that we in this house, by the legislative process, have had a good deal to do with that immunization. In other words, in our zeal to ensure that the broadcasting system does not come under some form of partisan political domination, we have more or less set the C.B.C. to one side in a way that has brought some feeling of frustration to many people in Canada, because of their inability to make felt their feelings and views with respect to the C.B.C.
I do not want to repeat what I said before, but I suggested that the best regional and national forum in Canada is this House of Commons. Outside the actual terms of this bill we, as a house of parliament, have it within our power to set up a mechanism different from that which existed heretofore, and through that mechanism we could make the views of regions known and felt from time to time. We could do that with respect to broadcasting and other related matters, instead of, as we have done in the past, using the Secretary of State as a go-between with ourselves on one side and the broadcasting system on the other.
6326	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I made references to the technique employed when we established the redistribution commissions. We evolved the machinery for making our views known to them. I draw this proposal to the attention of the hon. member, and my own view is-because it is my own brainchild, I suppose-that that proposal or technique might serve better to meet the purposes he has in mind.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make two comments, one of them about the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington South. He said that the commission would be adequate to reflect public opinion to the broadcasting authority. I do not think it is adequate, and that is why I brought forward this amendment.
I do not think the commission, with its number of members, will be suitably reflective of Canadian public opinion. The hon. member is right. Under the bill the commission will have the resources, if it decides to, to go across the country. It may consult with various bodies across the country. But we have not said, in this bill, that it should do that. If the minister would consent anywhere else in the bill to some amendment which would indicate parliament's desire for this authority to go out among the public and ask how the public feels about broadcasting, I shall be content. If we do not provide for that in the bill somewhere, we shall be remiss in our duty.
The second aspect of the proposed amendment which was touched on by the hon. member for Hochelaga had to do with the clumsiness of the machinery which would be employed under this amendment. I do not think the machinery would be as cumbersome as he imagines.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I envisage that the members of the advisory councils would be volunteers appointed by labour unions, educational groups and so on. They might be paid officials of those unions or other groups, or they might not. In any event, their services would not add, as the hon. member for Hochelaga suggested, to the cost of operation of the national broadcasting authority. Their presence might mean more work for the commission. In fact it would, because the commission would be obliged to consult with them once or twice a year and it would be obliged also to answer for ignoring recommendations by the councils in previous years.

DEBATES	February 2, 1968
I believe it is essential to the working of the democratic process in Canada that we end the isolation of our national broadcasting system from the Canadian public. In my view it is important that we should accept this amendment or, alternatively, that the minister should place some other provision in the bill which would satisfy the objections I have raised-objections which I believe to be legitimate.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I rise to ask whether the hon. member would entertain a question. He began by proposing the establishment of regional advisory groups or councils. From his last few remarks I understood they are to be composed, at least in part of representatives from occupational groups. Is he proposing some new hydrid?


Lawrence E. Watson: I indicated that if this amendment were passed it would be necessary to bring in an additional amendment later, probably to clause 21, setting out details of the regional councils to be established. I would propose that the members should be appointed for a period not exceeding two years, that the appointments should be non-remunerative, that the councils should be based on regional areas and that their members should include representation from labour unions, educational groups, agriculture, religious groups and so on, the commission having discretion to allow persons to be appointed from any other groups which they felt were adequately representative of Canadian opinion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprai-rie (Mr. Watson), and I still do.
An advisory council such as that one is obviously justified. The programs of the C.B.C. and of private television stations enter our homes every day, sometimes up to 15 or 16 hours a day. They bring ideas, opinions, information, entertainment and all sorts of things into every home.
It is noted, at the same time, that C.B.C. programs, as one might expect, cause reactions, as evidenced by the number of letters to newspapers about such or such a program. One can see that television in general causes reactions, judging by the comments being made. One can also see it in this house by the many members who are interested in this problem.
February 2, 1968	COMMONS
Therefore I think there should be a body which could feel the pulse of the people, so to speak, or to which people could go to express their views. If in the province of Quebec, as the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie has said, a regional council is set up which will hold public meetings where anyone could go and say what he thinks, this will allow people to let off steam and the taxpayers whose money finances the C.B.C. to voice their opinions. The advisory council would not have to accept all suggestions as if they were binding; these would be merely voiced as advice or suggestions. These advisory regional councils would take the pulse of the public and receive its opinions.
I recall, for instance, that a few years ago and perhaps less, the C.B.C. was in the habit of showing us almost every day programs with ballet in it, so much so that we were sick of it. I even saw classical ballet danced on ladders and the next day people would say: We turned the television off last night, it was ballet again. If there had been an agency to which the people as a whole could have expressed publicly what they thought of the C.B.C. the situation could have been changed. That is democratic, and I feel that is would also give the taxpayers a chance to speak their minds.
It does not mean that the C.B.C. or the Canadian radio-television council should accept everything, but at least they would know what the public thinks.
Earlier, I heard the hon. members for Bur-naby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) and Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) say that that would make for a very dense and unwieldly superstructure, I do not recall the exact term-


Gérard Pelletier: Heavy.


Gilles Grégoire: Amendment (Mr. Watson, Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie): negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 32.


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


William Arnold Peters: I think the Secretary of State should take a look at how dull this debate has been in the last few days and then examine subclause (l)(iv) allowing the council to make restrictions on dramatization of political programs, and announcements of a partisan political character. This is as stupid a regulation as the C.B.C. ever dreamed up. When a politician is competing with "Bonanza" he has sufficient handicap without being restricted in his efforts to liven his broadcasts.
In the past the C.B.C., and later the B.B.G., turned down applications to dramatize political broadcasts. I remember a number of years ago in Timmins, before the local station found out it was breaking the regulations, there was a monthly political broadcast which started out with the playing of the Swedish Rhapsody. Possibly due to the popularity of the program in Timmins, that tune later rated on the hit parade. I do not think there is anything wrong with politics, but by allowing this clause to remain in the bill the minister is saying politics is a dirty business which must be dealt with by a Sunday school type of program. Anything that will enliven a political broadcast will improve it.
I know that each time the format of the program in Timmins was changed the local Liberal party was willing to try the change suggested. I will be darned if I will leave it up to a board such as this to decide what kind of political broadcast should be carried. Expenditures will take care of too much overdramatization of political broadcasting.
To date, political broadcasts have not been very acceptable to the public, judging by their reception of "The Nation's Business" and "Provincial Affairs." The change made by the Ontario Liberal party in the "Provincial Affairs" series was a step in the right direction, yet it was not allowed. We are not living
February 2, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in the dark days of 20 years ago. Nowadays there is enlightened thought about broadcasting. If politicians can dramatize their political programs to a small degree I do not think the council should be able to forbid them. If a politician is wrong in his dramatization the public will know and we will not have to worry about him any more. The public will have some say in that respect, something which is not true with regard to other programs. The minister, who is very progressive, and who has had a lot to do with dramatizing politics in her own party, should consider removing this silly restriction which is being carried over from the early days of the C.B.C. and the latter days of the B.B.G.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I strongly support the views of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) regarding the dramatization of political programs.
I think we are unacceptably restricting our freedom of expression. In his newly published book, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), defines freedom of expression as complete freedom except that it prohibits obscenity and sedition.
However, I do not see how the dramatization of a political program can be obscene, or seditious. We are far from doing that. But I feel it is unacceptably restricting our freedom of speech.
How come we suddenly have become so touchy about political programs and forbid any dramatization? Why forbid a staging which would show the ill-effects of unemployment by filming all those who come to the Unemployment Insurance Office to get their benefits? Nothing should prevent it; that is what is called freedom of expression.
If, for instance, a film had been shot about the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), when she was heading the "Truth Squad", it could not have been shown on television. Why not? Because it would have involved dramatization or staging on a political subject.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Mcllraith:: I wonder if we could carry this clause first before we rise, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee agree we should carry clause 16 before seeing the clock?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy 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 S-32, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act to which the concurrence of this house is desired.
I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate do unite with the House of Commons in the appointment of a joint committee to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto, and that certain honourable Senators have been appointed to act on the said committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this would be a convenient time to announce the business of the house proposed for Monday. We will begin with item No. 36, the measure which has been occupying the time of the house today. After that we will consider items 53, 54 and 55 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance.


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



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving)-Mr. Mather.
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, with consent I wish to withdraw Bill C-21. Last year the subject matter of this bill was referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs where it formed the basis for the discussion in respect of the breathalizer legislation which is now being brought forward in the amendments to the Criminal Code. I think my bill in its way has served some purpose, and does not now need to remain on the order paper. So with the
February 2, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6329
consent of the house I would ask that the bill be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to have the bill withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11;46) -Mr. Herridge.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Herridge, seconded by Mr. Howard, moves the second reading of Bill C-22, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11;46).


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you selected the wrong person. I had no intention of seconding the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Herridge, seconded by Mr. Peters, moves the second reading of Bill C-22, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11;46).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has seconded this motion, because I know that at the same time it is seconded by the majority of the members of this house. This is a bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, with the subtitle "St. Luke 11;46". I should like to explain this reference to St. Luke 11;46 which reads as follows:
And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
It is not usual for a subtitle to be taken from the scriptures, but this statement of our Lord is the first recorded opinion with respect to the gentlemen of the legal profession in the Christian era. I mention this only because of its historical significance to indicate that this problem has been with us for nearly 2,000 years. However, members of the legal profession, like untold millions, have responded to the teachings of the gospel since that time.
Senate and House of Commons Act
My attention was first directed to this question when I first discovered that a few members of parliament, who are also lawyers, were accepting fees from constituents and clients for representations made on their behalf to the ministry on immigration matters or for other services rendered in representations made to other ministries or agencies of the federal government.
In fairness to members of the legal profession, I must say that over a long period of years I have had a very happy relationship with the majority of lawyers I have known in British Columbia, and with a number of the justices of the supreme or county courts of British Columbia, who have all been men of honour and integrity, regardless of the party which appointed them to their high offices.
A code of ethics for the legal profession has concerned the law societies of Canada, various other organizations and the press. For instance, in the Globe and Mail of February 7, 1966, it is reported that the Law Society of Upper Canada has paid over a million and a half dollars as compensation to clients of disbarred lawyers in the past 12 years, according to treasurer John D. Arnup. Included in this report is a list of lawyers who have been disbarred for unethical practices.
I have also been informed of persons who have paid members of parliament, who are also lawyers, for representations made to the ministry of immigration on their behalf. However, these persons naturally do not wish to be identified. In this regard I should like to relate briefly the experience of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). Three days after I introduced this bill last year one of his constituents phoned him requesting information as to whether a certain relative of his in Europe could be sponsored. The hon. member for Danforth said that he would get in touch with the immigration office. He did so and was told that the case would be examined on the basis of the information given. Later the hon. member received a phone call from the immigration office advising him that the person in question was entitled to come to Canada. They suggested that he advise his constituent to apply at a certain immigration office. When he so advised his constituent the constituent said to him, "I am quite willing to pay you the $500 which is usually charged by members of par Lament for this service." The hon. member for Danforth, being the upright member he is, turned this down, with a snort.


Mr. Stewart:: Did he do that because he was a member of the New Democratic party?
6330	COMMONS
Senate and House of Commons Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Also because of his high principles.
This problem has also been of some concern to the Congress of the United States and various state legislatures. I am sure many members of parliament have read of the scandal surrounding senator Tom Dodd, a lawyer who used his influence for corrupt purposes. This senator's activities caused the Senate of the United States to pass a censure resolution which is of such interest that I should like to quote it:
Resolved, that it is the judgment of the Senate that the senator from Connecticut, Thomas J. Dodd.. .deserves the censure of the Senate: and he is so censured for his conduct, which is contrary to accepted morals, derogates from the public trust expected of a senator, and tends to bring the Senate into dishonour and disrepute.
I think the Senate acted wisely on that occasion. This problem is of increasing concern to Congress and to state legislatures, as evidenced by the introduction of bills that would deal with conflict of interest and provide for a state ethics commission.
This bill proposes to remedy the grievance that arises when the public relationship between a member of parliament and a citizen is subverted to the private relationship between lawyer and client, to the financial hurt of the citizen. For example, the citizen asks his member to make inquiries of the ministry in an immigration matter and is often dismayed to find that, his member being a lawyer, he is billed for fees on a solicitor-client basis. This grievance is an ancient one, and the remedy proposed is to revive and modernize an order of the United Kingdom that is 300 years old.
Parliament has delegated to the executive the power to grant or refuse in its discretion many matters that once were entrusted to the House of Lords to investigate, hear, and grant or refuse. They were classed as "personal" petitions. The commons delegated the airing and adjudication of these private grievances to the upper chamber by making no rules whereby the petitions could be initiated in the commons.
The commons, on account of the conflict of interest activities of its lawyer-members in intermeddling as lawyers in these private petitions, successively passed orders which placed the activities of these lawyer-members within the control of the commons. I do not have time to deal with the various orders that were passed in the commons of Great Britain to meet this question.

DEBATES	February 2. 1968
[DOT] (5:10	p.m.)
In considering such a bill it is interesting to look into foreign legislation to discover the kind of provisions which have been adopted in other countries. I have read as widely as I could under the circumstances, but this did not permit of much serious reading. I may confess that it is difficult to find legislation of this kind which is more or less analogous with the purposes of this bill, and for two reasons. On the one hand it has been impossible for me to review all foreign acts and regulations, due to the fact that they are not available. On the other hand, according to the documents I have examined, it seems that the subject matters are yet to be considered.
Undoubtedly the concern to ensure the independence of members of parliament in the face of financial, economic and social pressure has become more marked over the years. This is a matter of status seeking, as you will understand. Nevertheless one can find in other countries some provisions regarding the incompatibility of occupation, by which a member of parliament is debarred from following certain occupations during his term of office.
The purpose of this bill is more limited. It does not provide for disqualification from membership of parliament by virtue of occupation. It only contains a suggestion to limit a lawyer's privilege to accept any fee or benefit for acting in certain government affairs. Problems of conflicts of interest, undue influence, and other violations of duty by legislators or other members of the government are being raised in Canada as well as in other countries. We have heard of several cases raised recently in the United States.
In continental Europe the problem of conflicts of interests of the lawyer do not appear clearly solved. This can be understood in Scandinavian countries where parliament does not include a great number of lawyers. As is written by Professor Elis Hastad in "The Parliament of Sweden":
The practice of drawing the representatives of the people from the ranks of their social equals, because they are "the representatives of the brethren at home", is not peculiar to the parliament of Sweden. Much the same occurs in all the other Scandinavian countries. The Swedish Riksdag is no "parliament of lawyers" of the type found in several other European lands, and above all, in the Congress of the United States where at times almost two thirds of the members have been jurists.
February 2, 1968

Also in the Australian parliament, lawyers are not in great number. As written by J. D. B. Miller in "Australian Government and Politics":
The candidates elected from the various parties are less easy to distinguish from one another than might be expected: in speech, dress and standard of education, they mirror the general conditions of Australians. Only a minority has had a tertiary education...
That means an education of sort of third degree level.
The situation is different in some European parliaments which are made up in good part of lawyers. Nevertheless in continental Europe the question of the lawyer-legislator conflict of interest does not seem systematically under control.
There is no doubt that the problems of the professional role of lawyer-members of the Senate and House of Commons in certain government affairs is one of ethics. When the lawyer has a seat in the Commons or in the Senate he does not cease to be a lawyer. In that field his conduct should be governed by the positive rules of legal ethics.
Of course every bar association is governed by its own rules, and it is quite impossible to frame a satisfactory definition of ethics as applied to the legal profession. The sense of honour and fairness should be the same from coast to coast. Although it is hard to limit the exact duties of the lawyer, the Canadian Bar Association approved a statement of some of the ethical principles which should be observed by members of the legal profession.
In February of 1956 the council of the city of Toronto resolved:
That the government of Ontario be requested to enact the necessary legislation to make it clear that a lawyer who is a member of metropolitan council or of any municipal council, shall not be entitled to accept a fee for acting for any person in a matter in which the council of which he is a member may act by resolution or by law-
This resolution was considered as one of legal ethics. The discipline committee brought this matter to the attention of the profession, reminding them that no lawyer can serve two conflicting interests, and if a member of the profession holds any elected or appointed office he should not accept any retainer through which his duty to his client and his duty to such office may conflict.
The British House of Commons has not confined itself to the repression of direct pecuniary corruption. To guard against indirect influence it has forbidden the acceptance of fees by its members for professional
6331
Senate and House of Commons Act services connected with proceedings in parliament. Thus a member is not permitted to practise as counsel before the house or any committee thereof, and it is not consistent with parliamentary usage for members to advise, as counsel, upon any private bill or other proceeding in parliament, or matters related to the jurisdiction of parliament.
It has also been declared contrary to the law and usage of parliament for any member to be engaged, either by himself or any partner, in the management of private bills before either house of parliament for pecuniary reward and, upon the same grounds, it was ordered on November 6, 1666:
That such members of this house as are of the Long-Robe shall not be counsel on either side, in any bill depending in the Lords' House, before such bill shall come down from the Lords' House to this house.
The acceptance, in my opinion, by a member of either house of a fee, compensation, gift or reward for drafting, advising upon or revising any bill, petition or other document submitted or intended to be submitted to either house or any committee thereof would appear to be a breach of privilege.
I have referred to the things I have gathered together in respect of this bill because I am serious in this regard, and I have strong support. Several members of the cabinet endorse the principle outlined in this bill, including the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), who has stated strongly that he considers it immoral for any member of parliament to receive any payment for acting as a lawyer in any matter he should undertake as his responsibility as a member of parliament. I also have the strong support of the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh) in this regard, and I know of several other members of the cabinet who agree with the principles of this bill. Surely it is necessary at this time to indicate to the Canadian people that we are men of integrity in this house and intend to stand in favour of a code of ethics, so far as our practice is concerned.
In addition I have a letter from Eight Hon. John Diefenbaker which I wish to place on record. I give him credit for the fact that when he was first elected he told me he informed his firm that while he was a member of parliament no member of his firm was to deal with a matter that was within the jurisdiction of parliament or its elected representatives, because he was elected by the people to serve that purpose. That has been his practice and the practice of his firm since.
6332	COMMONS
Senate and House of Commons Act This is what Mr. Diefenbaker said in his letter of April 16, 1966:
Dear Bert:
Your report from parliament hill for April 20th is a very interesting one. I commend you for the stand taken that any law firms with members of parliament therein, ought not to receive fees fpr work which ordinarily should be done by the member in the discharge of his duties.
I know there are members of all parties in parliament who support the principle of this bill. I have received a good number of letters from members of the legal profession in the country informing me of their support. I have also had conversations with many of these people and know they are behind this principle. It is my belief from the letters I have received from members of my constituency, numbering possibly close to 100, that there has been excellent response from the public. Among these letters I received one from His worship Mayor William Dennison of Toronto.
I look forward to hearing the opinions of other members on this matter.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this bill. At the outset let me say I entirely support the principle expressed by the hon. member. I agree that a lawyer should not become involved in any matter which may bring about a conflict of interest betwen his duties as a member of parliament and his position as a lawyer. But having said that, I must go on to the next matter, and that is that with the increasing involvement of the federal government in the everyday business of people, an involvement which did not exist in previous years, it is becoming more and more difficult for a lawyer who works in a firm, or who practises at all, to disengage himself completely from some involvement with the federal government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I myself practise law on week ends, on holidays, when the house recesses, on an occasional day off, or when my hard working partner wishes to go on a holiday, and I find this involvement is becoming more and more difficult for me. Of course, as parliament sits for longer and longer periods, the opportunity for me to practise law is decreasing. Nevertheless the same difficulty applies as regards my firm, and I feel that it is just as much bound by this bill as I am, myself. We have come to a definite agreement in our firm that we will handle nothing having to do with the federal government in any way.
[Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	February 2, 1968
However, what do we do when we handle the estate of a deceased person? This is the backbone of the practice of rural lawyers and a good many urban ones also. There are three things to be done when a person dies: We have to probate his will, which involves a circuit court; we have to file provincial succession duty returns in most provinces, which involves filing a provincial return; and we have to file an estate tax return. This is where the problem lies. Are we barred completely as a law firm from acting on the estate of any deceased person? To what extent are we permitted, according to legal ethics, to file estate tax returns, and to what point are we entitled to press a disputed claim?
We have applied a rule of thumb to it and-and I say this badly-I think most other firms do as well. We feel we are not in any way disqualified from acting on any estate which involves a routine filing of an estate tax return to the federal government, or a routine assessment or even reassessment of property, because no conflict arises in such cases. Nevertheless this lurking problem is at the back of our minds all the time.
There is another problem also. In many small law practices assistance is given in preparing income tax returns. In most cases it is a routine matter, but sometimes a dispute arises and one's client may come back and say "You helped me fill the forms out, and you filled them out wrong". If returns are filled out in our office and a dispute arises, we may have to appear before a federal board of some kind. In such a situation we hand the matter over to someone else.
These are two examples of the difficulties which are brought about by the gradual intrusion of the federal government into the life of the average citizen, and in spite of my absolute agreement with the principle of the bill, I say it is not easy to define the dual role which may be played by a member of parliament; and I am not sure the bill deals adequately with it.
I note that at the end of the bill the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) assigns to Mr. Speaker a discretionary power to set down rules within which the legal profession may act. Perhaps this may be a way out. Speaking for myself, I go home on many week ends and I find my appointment book filled with the names of people who have made inquiries during the week. I have no idea whether they wish to see me on legal
February 2, 1968

or on political business. When they start telling me their story and they reach a point at which there seems to be something involving the federal government, 1 ask them whether they wish to consult me as a lawyer or as a member of parliament. They ask me what the difference is, and I tell them that if they are consulting me as a member of parliament I cannot charge them anything. They say then "That's for me; I will consult you in that capacity". This may often lead such people into traps, because if they have become involved in some family matter in which they may require assistance, which I cannot give because of my position as member of parliament, I merely send them to someone else.
I point these matters out to indicate the difficulties faced by members of parliament who are practicing lawyers. I think that the purpose of the bill is good, and I would have no hesitation in supporting it, but I am sure that all hon. members who are practising lawyers would very much like to have some of these problems cleared up.
In conclusion I should like to say one thing.
I think there should be no difficulty in the open and shut cases, when a lawyer is consulted and attempts to advise a client on a matter dealing directly with the federal government, such as immigration matters in which there is a direct appeal to a government body. In such cases the government body dealing with it is placed in a difficult position because the member of parliament-lawyer may harass the department as a solicitor, and also worry it as a member of parliament. In this event the poor official gets knocked on both sides. In such cases I believe the proposal in the bill can easily be applied. I think that the other matters can work themselves out, and certainly if the bill comes to a vote I will support it.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate as a lawyer and as a member of parliament, and I support the bill. When I first came here two years ago I gave up my practice in law because I felt I could not carry on my duties as a member of parliament and as a lawyer at the same time. I was surprised to hear after I became a member of parliament that there were some lawyers in the house who acted on behalf of their constituents, before either labour or immigration boards, or made representations to ministers, and billed their clients for the work they had done as members of parliament. I must say I found this rather shocking and I wondered how this had 27053-399}
Senate and House of Commons Act remained so quiet for so long. I would have thought that the people who received bills for this work would have complained to parliament or to bar associations, or else that these complaints would have been brought up by opposition parties in the house.
Before I speak in support of the bill before us I should like to say a word or two on behalf of lawyers, because when the sponsor of the bill quoted the scriptures from St. Luke and made other remarks, he contributed
to the myth-and I call it a myth advisedly_______
that lawyers in general are scoundrels, and if they are in politics they are even worse scoundrels. I say this is a myth because some of our most outstanding political figures over the centuries have been lawyers. I could refer to Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas More, and in Canada both Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier and Sir John A. Macdonald were lawyers. There are many others. As I say, some of those men who were lawyers also made great contributions to politics and justice.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I know that most bar associations, especially the bar association of the province of Quebec, are quite conscious of the fact some lawyers have done things which are not in accordance with good ethics. The lawyers themselves have set up discipline councils and codes of ethics. The lawyers have even set up officials whom they pay to investigate complaints made by clients and to hear complaints in public. In Quebec we call this official the "Syndic" of the bar. If a lawyer is found to have violated the ethics of his profession he can be suspended temporarily or permanently. Each year there are a number of lawyers who are suspended on this basis.
In addition we, as members of the bar in the province of Quebec and I suspect in other jurisdictions, contribute so much money each year to a fund to reimburse clients who have been robbed, gypped or defrauded in one way or another. There have been many clients who have received bad treatment from lawyers and who have been reimbursed. The vast percentage of lawyers willingly contribute to this fund to keep the good name of their profession before the public and to guarantee the public that they will be properly treated.
With respect to this bill to improve the role of lawyers in politics, I would say it is important that we enact legislation such as this, because we must do everything possible to convince the public we are here to serve them and the public interest alone. We must
February 2, 19G8
6334	COMMONS DEBATES
Senate and House of Commons Act convince the public we are not using politics do the job full time you had to pay them a as a means of earning money in the private decent salary, so they would do the job on a sense, or outside of our position as politicians, full time basis.
In this day and age being a member of par- According to the hon. member for Koote-liament has become a full time job. I under- nay West, however, there are some members stand that some years ago before I was here who are charging their constituents for doing parliament used to sit for a small part of the work for them. As a matter of fact, I think year. As we all know, parliament now sits at even without considering this provision of the least nine months of the year. Even in the law, we should try to find out who they are, three months of recess we have to work with and they should be brought before the appro-our constituents doing the many things to priate committee. I am not suggesting we which the hon. member for Kootenay West should again review the salaries of members (Mr. Herridge) referred. Even when this 0f parliament. At the time, I thought it was house is not sitting we must act generally as too bad that the salaries of members were not ombudsmen for our constituents.	tied to something which would take them out
When I go home on the week ends I spend of the arena of politics. These salaries should the time answering the phone calls of con- be tied to a certain level of civil servant or a
stituents and consulting with them. This is quite easy for a member who lives in Montreal, as I do, and may return to Montreal each week end to deal with this business. Members who come from the far reaches of the country and who get home only every third or fourth week end, have a lot more work of this type to do. Those outside parliament often do not realize how much work we have to do. Members have to attend to immigration matters, matters with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien), matters dealing with customs, with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen), with the dairy commission and so on. All members have a great deal of work of this type and they have to spend a lot of time dealing with it.
Now, one might ask why, since parliament is sitting so often now and since members received a pay increase several years ago, members would want to charge their constituents for the work they are doing with government boards, and so on. I have referred to the fact that a few years ago the salaries of members of parliament were increased. Although I was not here at that time and had no intention of coming here, I supported the policy of increasing the salaries of members of parliament. I thought such a move would prevent these abuses. I thought if members were paid a decent salary, and expenses, they would not be tempted to work outside the house on other matters. I thought, too, that if you paid members low salaries you favoured the wealthier class in society who would be able to run for parliament, whereas those on lower incomes with large families could not afford to maintain a residence in Ottawa and a residence in their constituency. My main reason for supporting a salary increase for members was that if you wanted these men to [Mr. Allmand.l
judge.
Every time it was thought appropriate to increase the salary of this level of civil servant or judge, you would automatically increase the salaries of members of parliament. This would take members' salaries out of the controversial area in which they have been. I am not suggesting that this be done now. The things you have to do for a constituent often involve legal or quasi legal procedures. Perhaps a lawyer has some advantage over any other type of person in doing these things because he has been dealing with boards and courts before he came to parliament. However, I believe a member should make it clear to his constituent that he does not receive payment for his work.
However, sometimes constituents come to you and want something done quickly. They want you to spend money. If you have to spend money to get something done, perhaps draft procedures for them or make long distance phone calls, then I believe you should make it clear to them that if there are expenses involved which cannot be covered by your parliamentary expenses the client would have to pay the expenses. Members should discourage clients from giving any fee.
All this involves the member of parliament functioning as some sort of ombudsman for his constituents. He should be able to do this in a much more efficient way than he does now. Really, the member of parliament has two functions. His first function is as a legislator, that is the preparation of government programs for the people. His other function is to act as a representative of the people in his constituency vis-a-vis the government and government agencies.
February 2, 1968	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I submit that right now there are some inconsistencies in connection with the help given to members in doing this work. The member who represents the constituency of York-Scarborough, which is the largest constituency in Canada from the point of view of population, has only one secretary, as has the hon. member who, without casting any reflections upon him, represents !les-de-la Madeleine which has about 14,000 constituents. Both members have the same office help and one secretary apiece, as have other members with the exception of ministers. It is a well known fact that members with large constituencies sometimes handle three or four times the correspondence of other members, in their second function as a member of parliament, and to do this work well they should have more help.
In the province of Quebec the provincial members are now given an additional expense account to maintain a secretary in their constituency. This is also the practice in the United States. Some members of the house have suggested from time to time that members of parliament should have offices in their constituency situate in a federal building, such as a post office or other building. A secretary based at this office could assist the constituents of the member and help do a better job to represent them in parliament. Right now this job is not always done as well as it should be.
Only last year, Mr. Speaker, members were given the right to charge for telephone calls made to their constituency. Previously members who lived in the far reaches of Canada had been receiving bills for $60 or $70 a month for telephone calls to their constituency. This has now been changed and members may phone their constituency at government expense.


Mr. Walker:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


David James Walker: I am wondering whether the hon. member, who is obviously in agreement with the general principles of the bill, would agree that it is discriminatory to members of the House of Commons. Would he also agree with the elimination of the words in the second line, following the word "Commons", "who is admitted as a barrister or enrolled as a solicitor under the laws of a province"? In other words, the bill should refer to every
DEBATES	6335
Senate and House of Commons Act member of parliament, not just to this particular group.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this is not my bill, but the bill of the hon. member for Kootenay West. However, I certainly support that suggestion and it was my intention to raise that point. Not only lawyers could charge for their time in dealing with other matters; the same applies to accountants and other professions. Accountants have a lot of experience with income tax and revenue matters and in this respect are in the same position as lawyers. I do not know whether the hon. member for Kootenay West has found that other professions have abused their role as members of parliament by charging their constituents for services rendered, but I think everyone should be included in this measure of reform.
There are members of other professions who take advantage of their position as members of the House of Commons to make money in one way or another. The clause should also be amended to put these persons in the same position as notaries, barristers and solicitors. I do not think it is fair just to limit it to lawyers, though perhaps they have been the chief violators or abusers of their role. I think this is unfortunate because lawyers have been the leaders of reform in this area as well. They have been very conscious that their position as lawyers often leaves them open to situations where they could enter into dishonest or questionable activity. Because many lawyers are aware of this they have gone a long way to discipline the members of their profession and to take care of situations like this.
In conclusion, I support this bill, though I do not think it is a complete remedy of the evil that the hon. member attempts to eliminate.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that frankly I do not think very much of this bill. Perhaps no member of the house handles more immigration matters than I, as the representative of the metropolitan riding of Toronto Spadina.
Personally I have never made a charge for any assistance that I have rendered in immigration cases, and I hope that this will continue to be the case. I agree with the apparent attitude toward the bill taken by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker). In my opinion the bill is certainly discriminatory and I think this should be the opinion of all hon members. Why, for example, should it
February 2, 1968
6336	COMMONS
Senate and House of Commons Act specify a barrister or an enrolled solicitor under the laws of a province, rather than simply a senator or a member of the House of Commons?


David James Walker: Because they were mentioned in St. Luke.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Let me take the case of an engineer who is a sitting member. Let us say he is asked to deal with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is not his position on all fours with the position of the barrister or solicitor?
However, I do agree that the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is useful in that it brings this matter forward for discussion. I agree with the statement in the explanatory notes that a grievance does arise if a member of parliament makes a charge in an immigration case when he is doing nothing more than giving assistance as a politician. Many immigration cases require a great deal of legal assistance.
I encounter this all the time in connection with the admission of people from the Orient. Many problems arise that often require long and detailed research. Birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates are required.
In China there is a custom that if a mother loses her child she replaces it with the child of another woman, even concealing the fact from her husband. There are all kinds of permutations and combinations that arise in immigration matters. Blood tests are taken by the department that often indicate that the child in question could not be the child of the parents. Radiological tests sometimes show that the bones of a child indicate that the child is too old to be the one referred to in the application. A member has to advise and assist a constituent who seeks to bring in such a person. Such constituent may have been making monthly payments for the support of the child for years, and he then discovers that the blood test shows that the child is not his.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
A member of parliament does not have time, particularly if he is a full time member, to be of assistance in hard immigration cases; so it is only right and proper to call in the assistance of a solicitor, preferably from the constituent's own community. You have to call in a lawyer in many cases, if you are wise, to communicate with the constituents clearly.


I am out of sympathy with this bill and I agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Aiken) when he says that this bill is far too all embracing. It covers the waterfront. A lawyer, if this bill becomes law, will no longer be able to wind up his legal practice properly. I have been elected for six years and I am still executor for some estates. There are still accounts to pass, payments to look after and investments to take care of. I still have some commitments to companies and only gradually am I able to divest myself of them. This bill would bar a solicitor in my position from accepting any fee, directly or indirectly, or any benefit, as the result of acting in his professional capacity in respect of any matter, wheresoever originating, that is or is intended to be a private or public proceeding in the Senate or House of Commons or in committee of either house or that is, under an act of parliament, within the discretion of a minister of the crown or the governor in council to determine.
How far does that go? In many cases this bill would create grave anxiety and worry to a practising solicitor. I have continued to be a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada; I still have to pay $130 a year, so long as I am doing anything by way of legal practice. It is necessary to keep up a library and to pay the various law association dues. Generally, in the case of a partnership, it is necessary to play ball with your partners.
I have never heard it suggested that we should stop farmers from farming, car dealers from selling cars, consulting engineers from charging, doctors, who are hon. members, from practising medicine-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Or from collecting subsidies.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: That is right. We do not try to stop professors from teaching or economists from practising economy. I suspect that the mover of the bill, who is often referred to as the Baron of the Kootenays, garners in the harvest from his vast holdings in the Columbia river basin, despite his being a highly honourable and respected member of parliament. I was shocked to learn that in the past there were a few cases where members of parliament, who were only part time members at that time, were charging exorbitant and unconscionable fees for the exercise of their political influence. That did not happen often and I do not think it is happening today at all.
February 2. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6337
As I say, in most cases I have made it a practice not to charge anything. I simply write to the minister or his parliamentary secretary or to an admissions officer, ask them to note my interest in the case and to keep me advised, and if something develops I advise the constituent. Perhaps I might give him a little advice or turn him over to a lawyer if I think it necessary. I do not think that this measure is needed at this time, in this country.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Having read this interesting bill put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West, who is not a lawyer, and having listened to two or three other hon. members in this house who are lawyers, I am more than ever impressed by the incisive interjection which was made in this debate by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), who suggested something which I think ought to be incorporated in the bill, if it comes before the house again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is in the bill already, surely.
Senate and House of Commons Act


David Walter Groos: I strongly support the suggestion that we delete from the bill that it is only solicitors or barristers who are liable. I support the suggestion that we remove from the bill the words which read, "who is admitted as a barrister or enrolled as a solicitor under the laws of a province", as suggested by the hon. member for York Centre and, two lines lower down, after the word "acting", the four words "in his professional capacity".
I suggest that to remove all chance-


An hon. Member:: To misunderstand?


David Walter Groos: -of indiscretions in this regard, we should also remove the last three lines of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is left?


David Walter Groos: What is left is very good.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for consideration of private members business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 5, 1968