1968-01-24

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to me as having proposed a resolution at the western Liberal conference in Winnipeg on a certain issue. As I was not present in Winnipeg at that time, he referred to me in error.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
January 22, 1963-The Solicitor General-That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the house; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	With reference to the reported sightings of unidentified flying objects in eastern Manitoba during the months of May and June 1967, how many such reports were received by various departments of the government of Canada and by the Department of National Defence in particular?
2.	How many of these reported or alleged sightings were investigated?
3.	Will the reports and findings of these investigations be made public?
4.	What are the reasons for not making public any such reports now in the possession of the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the departments of National Defence and Solicitor General as follows: 1. Four by the Department of National Defence. One by the Department of the Solicitor General.
2. Two; the other reports did not contain sufficient information and detail to warrant further investigation.
3	and 4. The actual reports received by the Department of National Defence have not been made public as some observers did not wish their names made public; and, in attempting to analyse reports, investigators have commented on the likely accuracy of observations. The description of sightings and the results of investigations are not classified information, however, any persons who send reports to the department do so on their own volition and are not asked to suppress the release of information to any other person or persons. The report in 2 above refers to a sighting on 20 May 67 by a person in the Falcon Lake area which was widely publicized in the press. The Department of National Defence investigation, which has now been completed, could not explain the sighting.
As a result of recent discussions between the Department of National Defence and the National Research Council, reports on sightings received through Canadian armed forces channels will be passed in future to the National Research Council to determine whether there are scientific reasons for further investigation.

January 24, 1968
Questions


UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA RESEARCH COSTS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the federal department of agriculture or any other department or agency of the federal government made any grants to the University of Manitoba for the purpose of research and measurement of radiation emitted by microwave, telecommunication facilities and the effects thereof on livestock and crops?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of such grants?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments and agencies as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


MAINTENANCE COSTS IN PENAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) minimum security institutions, and (d) farm and work camps?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
average cost of maintaining one inmate during the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 is as follows:
Type of institution All types Maximum Medium

Minimum Work Camps 2,595.78

Note: The statistics with reference to farm camps are not available since the operation and maintenance costs of these camps are absorbed in the expenditures of the parent institution.


CANADA PENSION PLAN-EMPLOYER OVERPAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Questions No. 747-Mr. Hales:
1.	What is the amount of the employers' overpayment to the Canada pension plan since the inception of the plan?
2.	How many employers are involved?
3.	What arrangements are being made to have this overpayment returned to the employers?
4.	How much money was collected in overpayment by employees since the Canada pension plan was started?
5.	How many employees were involved?
6.	How much money was returned to the employees?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Where an employer makes a contribution on behalf of his employee that is in excess of the amount required to be contributed under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, he may deduct the amount of such overpayment from subsequent remittances or apply for a refund of such amount which will be made if in accordance with the provisions of the plan.
2.	No information is available of the number of or amounts of such overpayments.
3.	Arrangements as set out above in Parts 1 and 2 have been made.
4.	Overpayments are calculated annually on the basis of applications made by employees when filing their income tax returns. Refunds for the 1966 year based on applications reviewed now total approximately $8,-
800,000.
5.	813,652 at December 1, 1967.
6.	$8,804,302.58 at December 1, 1967.


CANADA PENSION PLAN PAY-ROLL DEDUCTIONS
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	Is there to be an increase in pay-roll deductions for the Canada Pension Plan in the near future?
2.	If there is such an increase, how much is it and why is it being applied?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Commencing January 1, 1968, the Canada Pension Plan contributions for employees who earn more than $5,000 salaries or wages have been increased.
2. The maximum Canada Pension Plan contributions for 1968 by an employee earning $5,100 or more has been increased from $79.20 to $81. This increase in contributions is due to a rise in the pension index which is calculated in accordance with a formula provided for in the act to adjust contributions in relation to the rise in the consumer price index.


FEED GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacLean (Gueens): 1.	What is the total tonnage of Western feed grain shipped to Prince Edward Island for each of the last ten years, for which figures are available?
2.	What was the total subsidy paid on these amounts for each of the years specified?
January 24, 1968


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture as follows: Western feed grains shipped to Prince Edward Island, fiscal years 1957-58 to 1966-67:
Year	Tons	Feed freight assistance $ 306,775
1957-58	21,012	
1958-59	25,715	387,2461959-60	31,723	549,2211960-61	28,332	433,8671961-62	27,530	386,4801962-63	18,503	265,2821963-64	23,558	336,0601964-65	28,073	409,0661965-66	32,203	471,6121966-67	32,116	505,762


INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR DONATIONS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Ballard: In order that charitable organizations be registered with the Minister so that donation receipts to qualify as deductions from income for income tax purposes (a) is it a requirement that receipts issued after January 1, 1967, bear the registration number to qualify for deduction (b) what was the first date on which the Department was able to process applications received (c) has there been any undue delay in issuing certificates to applicants (d) will the Minister give consideration to accepting receipts without serial number issued by organizations whose application was received and approved after date shown on receipt (e) has an application been received from the Janz Brothers Gospel Association (of Calgary) and has approval been given?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) Yes; (b) December 5th, 1966;
(c)	No; (d) No, unless in any particular case the circumstances at the time the 1967 returns are required to be filed warrant such consideration; (e) This information is confidential and cannot be divulged.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY ESTABLISHMENT STRENGTHS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What are the establishment strengths in (a) officers, and (b) N.C.O.'s and ratings of each of the ships of the R.C.N. classified as on active duty, e.g., aircraft carrier, supply ship, destroyer escorts, submarines?
2.	What was the actual strength of each such ship as of November 30, 1967?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): It is not departmental policy to release individual unit strengths. However,
Questions
as of 30 November 1967 there were 381 officers and 5,129 N.C.O.'s and men serving in one aircraft carrier, one supply ship, one fleet support ship, 19 destroyer escorts and two submarines. The total establishment for these ships is 325 officers and 5,158 N.C.O.'s and men.


QUEBEC-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK INVESTMENTS
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How much has the Industrial Development Bank invested in the Province of Quebec in the last five years?
2.	To what industries has it made loans?
3.	What are the sums involved and who are the presidents of each borrowing company?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1. Loan approvals-province of Quebec (thousands of dollars) year ending September 30th
1967	$20,780	Number 4041966	31,935	4501965	25,479	4851964	24,994	4401963	22,535	3962. The Annual	Report of	the Industrial
Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1967 contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. Information on the classification of loans by industry by province is not published.
3.	It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate for the I.D.B. to make information publicly available relating to the affairs of a particular applicant or borrower.


PAYMENTS UNDER FISHING VESSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Tucker: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the Department of Fisheries under the Fishing Vessel Assistance Programme to each of the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec for the years ending March 31, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the amount paid to each of the Atlantic Provinces since April 1, 1967, and what is the estimated amount to become due between now and March 31, 1968?
3.	What was the amount paid to the Province of Quebec since April 1, 1967, and what is the estimated amount to become due between now and March 31, 1968?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minisier of Fisheries: 5904	COMMONS DEBATES	January 24. 1968
Questions
1.	Newfoundland	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Prince Edward Island	Quebec1959-60	$ 34,013.10	$ 136,174.50	$110,335.50	$ 28,937.70	$165,051.151960-61	19,169.70	117,682.95	36,832.95	49,226.10	122,976.151961-62	66,157.00	97,158.70	110,083.95	28,731.30	-1962-63	36,397.50	167,659.50	121,775.25	-	174,167.751963-64	42,850.00	150,302.50	80,285.00	-	226,562.501964-65	247,422.30	298,516.00	75,233.20	2,828.00	176,000.501965-66	119,008.44	1,183,700.07	296,729.74	6,733.16	165,044.101966-67	302,744.36	1,559,903.13	59,793.82	14,809.33	212,749.362 and 3.	Paid April 1 to Dec. 31/67	
Estimated amt. to become due	624,456.20	2,189,197.01	705,032.40	116,749.53	349,111.70Jan. 1 to March 31/68	387,327.81	1,109,386.92	356,904.70	36,063.25	185,000.00


CANADIAN DONATIONS TO ENGLAND
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	What amounts of money have been given to England by Canada since 1938?
2.	In what year was each of these amounts given?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. The Public Accounts of Canada for the years 1943-4 to 1945-6 show expenditure items under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act of 1942 and the War Appropriation (UN Mutual Aid) Act of 1943. These expendiutres covered the supply to the United Kingdom of Canadian war supplies for use by the United Kingdom and other allied powers. These expenditures are therefore included in the answer to question No. 864.


SASKATCHEWAN-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Southam: 1.	How much money has the Industrial Development Bank loaned in the Province of Saskatchewan in the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and to November 1, 1967?
2.	To what industries were these loans made and in what amounts?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Loan approvals-province of Saskatchewan (thousands of dollars)
year ending September 30th
1963	$2,404	Number 791964	3,801	1221965	4,742	1531966	6,447	1501967	4,962	111

2. The Annual Report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1967 contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. Information on the classification of loans by industries by province is not published.


IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Caouette: 1.	In connection with what Crown corporations, did the Minister of Labour postpone the application of the Canada Labour Code?
2.	In connection with these exempted corporations, when did or when will the Minister make the Canada Labour Code applicable?
3.	What Crown corporations or Crown corporation employees were excluded from the provisions of Part I of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) By deferment order issued under Section 51: Canadian National Railways for North Sydney Longshoremen, Eldorado Aviation Limited; (b) by suspension order issued under Section 51: Canadian National Railway Company- Newfoundland Steamship Service (Newfoundland Shipping Hours of Work Order); Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian National Steamship Company Limited (Navigation and Shipping Hours of Work Order); Northern Transportation Company Limited.
January 24, 1968

2. Name
Questions
Part I of code effective on
Canadian National Railways for North Sydney longshoremen Eldorado Aviation Limited Canadian National Railway Company- Newfoundland Steamship Service Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian National Steamship Co. Ltd. Northern Transportation Co. Ltd.
April 2, 1967 January 1, 1968
January 1, 1974*
January 1, 1969 January 1, 1969
*Under P.C. 1967-2260, November 30, 1967, pursuant to Section 51 (2) of the Code, phased from January 1, 1968 until full implementation at January 1, 1974.
3.	The Canadian Livestock Feed Board and The National Research Council.


CONSERVERIE SAINT-DENIS-SUR-RICHELIEU- DESTRUCTION OF BUTTER
Mr. Ricard: Was any loss sustained by the federal government as a result of the fire which on November 5, 1905, destroyed large quantities of butter stored at the Conserverie Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu and, If so, what was the amount?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, starred question 885 refers to a fire in 1965. The answer to the question is as follows. A fire occurred at the cold storage warehouse of the St. Denis Canning Company, St. Denis sur Richelieu, Quebec, on November 5, 1963, and not in 1965. A loss of $1,885,861.99, calculated at market value of the product, was suffered by the Agricultural Stabilization Board as a result of this fire.


HOMES FOR INDIANS IN MACKENZIE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What were the localities where homes were constructed for Indians in the Constituency of Mackenzie during 1967?
2.	How many homes were constructed in each location?
3.	In what localities will the homes be constructed in 1968, and how many will be constructed in each location?
4.	How many homes were constructed in Saskatchewan during 1967?
5.	How many homes will be constructed in 1968?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1, 2 and 3.
The following table shows the number of homes which the department proposes to build
on the reserves located in the constituency of Mackenzie during the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69:
Proposed Number of Homes
Reserve	1967-68 1968-69
Southend No. 200	6	6Pelican Narrows No. 184B	5	4Carrot River No. 29A	5	3Shoal Lake No. 28A	-	5Nut Lake No. 90	10	8Fishing Lake No. 89	5	3The Key No. 65	5	4Keeseekoose No. 66	10	7Total	46	404.	During the fiscal year 1967-68 it is proposed to construct 429 houses in Saskatchewan.5.	During the fiscal year 1968-69 it is proposed to construct 386 houses in Saskatchewan.


EXPENDITURES BY ETHNIC PRESS SECTION OF DEPARTMENT
Mr. Starr: 1.	What was the expenditure in respect of the Ethnic Press Section of the Department of the Secretary of State for 1967-68?
2.	What is the estimated expenditure for the Ethnic Press Section for 1968-69? Has it been reduced recently?
3.	How many persons are on the staff of the Ethnic Press Section?
4.	What are the staff requirements for 1968-69? Has there been a reduction in staff requirements?
5.	Is there an incumbent in the position of head of the section? If so, what is the name of the head of the section? If not, how long has the position been vacant?
6.	What is the present salary of the head of the section? Is any change contemplated in the salary?

January 24, 1968
Questions
7.	What is the number of publications analysts according to the establishment for 1967-68? For 1968-69?
8.	How many persons have been promoted in this section in the past four years?
9.	Are any further reductions in staff anticipated? For what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Within the citizenship branch, responsibility for reading and analysing publications in languages other than French or English was assigned to the publications and information division until 1966. This division had until then, an ethnic press section. In that year, this responsibility was transferred to the newly formed immigrant integration division and integrated with its multi-ethnic activities section. At the same time, related documentation functions were transferred to the research and documentation division. Hence there has not been an ethnic press section in the citizenship branch since 1966.
By the creation of this new division and its multi-ethnic-activities section, the branch increased its ability to keep informed about the needs of ethnic groups and to meet those needs.
The present establishment of the division is 10 positions, compared with eight in 1966-67, and further increases will be authorized as soon as positions become available.
Meanwhile, the analysis of non-French, non-English language publications is performed through service contracts; thus freeing the full-time staff for direct services to ethnic organizations.
The expenditures of the immigrant integration division are expected to reach $690,000. this year and $820,000. next year.
In view of the answer to question 1:
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	Effective October 1, 1965, the publications analysts positions were reclassified to administrative services positions. As a result of this reclassification, the incumbent in each position affected received an increase.
9.	Not applicable.
[Mr. Starr.)


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	For each year since its inception, how much has the Industrial Development Bank loaned in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many applications for loans has the bank received, by provinces, each year since its inception?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 45 is acceptable to the government.
Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 40?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


NEWFOUNDLAND-DAMAGE TO COD TRAPS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Tucker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Fisheries and the owners of trawlers in Newfoundland involved in damaging cod traps or other net gear owned by inshore fishermen.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. McOuaid:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents, correspondence or communications relating to the Northumberland Causeway and exchanged between Colonel Edward Churchill, the Government of Prince Edward Island or the Government of Canada or any department, commission or agency of either of the said Governments.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the production of correspondence between an employee of the Department of Public Works and the government of Prince Edward Island, and between that employee and the government of Canada, his employer. It has never been the practice to produce papers passing between a departmental employee and his own departmental officials or other officials of
January 24, 1968

the government, and this part of the motion is objectionable. There is no objection, of course, to producing any correspondence or papers which pass between a public works employee and the provincial government of Prince Edward Island, and these can be produced subject to the reservation that we would ask the permission of the province to publish them. I would be glad to agree to this part of the motion, subject to that reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 40 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister last week indicating that the government was considering representations made by the provinces on the subject of medical health services, and in view of the importance, to the country as a whole, of the government's decision on this matter, and particularly in view of its importance to provincial governments which are now trying to assemble their budgets for the coming fiscal year, for presentation to the legislatures, can the acting Prime Minister today tell the house when the government will announce the results of the review following the representations made by provincial governments on this subject?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister, as the hon. gentleman knows, continues to be ill. I expect him back tomorrow. This question was asked yesterday, and I replied to it.


MEDICARE-COST TO BRITISH COLUMBIA- REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether she would be good enough to look at question 727 on the order paper and do what she can to see that an answer is provided in the immediate future. This question has been
Inquiries of the Ministry on the order paper for over two months and I believe the information must be in the possession of the government without requiring any great research. I also make this request because I have another question which will be appearing on the order paper very soon, and I should like to preserve my record of having only one question on the order paper at a time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about this particular question, although I can see certain difficulties in obtaining an answer in the next few days. I should like to say that those who work in the parliamentary returns branch advise me that some 90.9 per cent of all the questions asked to date have been answered. I shall be very happy to have this question answered as quickly as I can.


MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO PORTABILITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, with reference to the medicare measure the Acting Prime Minister said it is permissive legislation and that its implementation is a matter for the provinces. Would he tell the house whether or not this indicates abandonment of the requirement in the medical care bill that the medical care plan should be portable from province to province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would perhaps be more precise to say "of course not".


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister could explain to the house how, unless all the provinces are going to be in this scheme, it will be portable from province to province.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence regarding the crashing of a United States plane near Thule, Greenland. The aircraft was carrying four thermonuclear bombs, each with an explosive

January 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry equivalent of one million tons of T.N.T. I want to ask the minister whether Resolute Bay or any other northern Canadian base is being used as an emergency landing field for planes of the strategic air command and, if so, what measures is the government taking to ensure the safety of Canadian territory and territorial waters in the event of a similar accident.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I think, first of all, I should say that there is an agreement between the governments of Canada and the United States for the overflight of planes from strategic air command.
There is no arrangement for landing. Of course if there were an emergency we would allow these planes to land. In the particular case we are concerned with, and the hypothetical case that something similar to this would happen in Canada, I am sure we have trained personnel who could intervene and act in accordance with the necessary precautions that would have to be taken in such a case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether any arrangements have been made with the government of the United States regarding the state of nuclear bombs in these aircraft when they fly over Canadian territory, and what precautions would be applicable in the event of a forced landing at a Canadian emergency base?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I assume, Mr. Speaker, and I say "assume" because I have not gone into that particular aspect of the question, we would find ourselves in the same situation as they now face in Thule, that the weapons would be de-armed and defused, and therefore the danger of an explosion would not really exist.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the danger from the dispersal of toxic fissionable material which could also have a serious effect on Canadian lives and territory?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: With due respect I would again call this a hypothetical question. In a case like that we would act according to the normal procedures, and people are trained how to act in such circumstances.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the Canadian government is in any way in consultation with

the government of Denmark which, I understand, is carefully looking into the problem of the risk involved in the incident mentioned by my leader?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My understanding of the basic difference between Denmark and Canada is that Denmark does not have the arrangement with the United States government that the Canadian government has.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Minister of Agriculture has just left, so I shall address my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether talks have been held with representatives of the Quebec and Ontario industrial milk producers to prepare the next subsidy program for industrial milk producers in 1968?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, the minister, who was in the house a minute ago, may be back shortly and I will bring this question to his attention.


GREENHOUSE PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION AGAINST LOW COST IMPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture but he is not in the house at the present moment. However, because of its importance perhaps I can address it to the minister's parliamentary secretary in the hope we may have an answer tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: The minister is away campaigning.


Harold Warren Danforth: In view of the fact that Ontario greenhouse produce will begin entering our markets within a week, can the government indicate its decision regarding the recent representations made by this industry in regard to protection against low cost imports?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice.
January 24, 1968


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the decision by the transport commission not to ask the Bell Telephone Company to reduce its rates in spite of its increased profits, will the minister's department be instituting a review of profits and rates in public utilities with a view to more iron clad directives in the future?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would wish to comment on this decision until I have had a chance to read it and the reasons given for it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: As a supplementary question, does the minister feel action is necessary on behalf of the government in view of the fact that this appears to be a violation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: -of the
formula-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question being asked by the hon. member is argumentative.


Thomas Miller Bell: To rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister make an announcement in the house about this matter, since it has a direct bearing on the Bell Telephone bill and the permissive earnings formula now being considered in committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will read the decision and the reasons for it as quickly as I can, and then decide whether a statement would be warranted.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: As a further supplementary question, in view of the fact that this situation has been repeated for a number of years, when he has read the decision would the minister consider using the applicable section of the act and bring this matter to the governor in council for review and action immediately?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would not want to prejudge what view I might have after reading the decision of the commission and its reasons for the decision it has taken.
Inquiries of the Ministry


ALLEGED IRREGULARITY IN RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT-REPLY BY MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked yesterday of my parliamentary secretary by the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris. The hon. member asked whether I was aware that the Canadian Transport Commission had given notice of a rail line abandonment hearing under old order 123994, contrary to the minister's assurance given to the house on December 18 last to the effect that any further hearings would be free of any previous orders or preconceptions. May I say in reply that I have checked with the Canadian Transport Commission and am assured that there has been no notice given of any rail line abandonment hearing under order 123994.
The hon. member may be referring to the costing hearings before the railway transport committee, but I have been assured that there has been no abandonment under this order.


STARVATION OF PONIES ON SABLE ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, the answer to which will help him sharpen up and make more green his image as a humanitarian. Would he look into the report on the Max Ferguson show that the ponies on Sable island are starving because of the recent severe winter storms?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will because I think this has happened once or twice before, and when it happened food has been flown in.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. On December 15, in reply to a question of mine, the Prime Minister indicated that he would seek the consent of the provinces to lay on the table the correspondence with the provinces relating to the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference and would do so with a view to laying it on the table before the recess. Would the Acting Prime Minister make inquiries concerning whether those consents have been secured

January 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry and whether the correspondence can now he laid on the table? If all the consents have not been secured, would the Acting Prime Minister arrange to lay on the table the correspondence for which consents have been secured.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will make these inquiries. I think the suggestion made with regard to the replies already made could be accepted.


PARLIAMENTARY WORK DURING PERIOD OF CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader on this matter. I should like to ask him what plans the government has in respect of parliamentary work during the period of the constitutional conference.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to wait for the return of the Prime Minister to the house before making any comment on that point.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to give a statement to the house concerning the very dangerous situation which has arisen in North Korea vis-a-vis the United States of America?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the United States authorities have stated categorically that the Pueblo, the ship in question, was in international waters at the time it was intercepted.
With regard to the part that Canada plays in this matter, it is clear that we are not directly involved in a matter which is essentially one between the United States and North Korea. There would in this situation be no precise role for us to play. However, we are concerned about the seriousness of the incident and are following it closely.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that

the President of France has announced that his government will be subsidizing the Moncton newspaper L'Evangeline in order to help in its "modernization, growth and means", would the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether the government does not regard such policy as contravening the Income Tax Act as amended by Bill No. C-118 in 1965, which is to assure that Canadian newspapers do not fall under foreign control?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion as to the interpretation of a statute, and that is not in order.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received complaints from maritime agents in Montreal to the effect that they had not been warned that ice-jams were forming in the St. Lawrence, that the icebreakers had not moved for the two days, in short, that they had started their work only after the ice-jams had really become difficult to break.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not any complaints have been received. I will have to take the question as notice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
In view of the responsibility of the Department of Transport in this field, does the government intend to compensate the property owners on the banks of the St. Lawrence for the damage caused by these floods?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government of Canada to use the excellent icebreakers and their crews to open the river and let the ice flow down the channel. I understand they have been doing a magnificently effective job, in view of the extreme cold weather we had a few days ago. Now the heart of the problem has been broken and they are working on the upper river stretch which is more difficult, but they hope to have that under control shortly.
January 24, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
last supplementary question?
Would the Minister of Transport bring this problem to the attention of a parliamentary committee, so that we may know for sure whether it is true that the icebreakers have not done their job or whether the authorities responsible for shipping on the St. Lawrence river have been remiss in their duty when those ice-jams formed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think they are doing their duty very well. When the main estimates of my department are being considered, if there are any questions which my hon. friend would like to address to me I would be pleased to deal with them.


Thomas Miller Bell: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister investigate the complaints to the effect that this year the excessive icebreaking may in itself cause extra flooding this spring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH AND COASTGUARD VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-
[DOT]way): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious lay-offs of shipyard workers in Vancouver and Victoria, and the consequent loss of skilled workers to the United States, will the minister give immediate reconsideration to expediting the construction of research and coastguard vessels planned for British Columbia shipyards?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we will always be willing to reconsider questions related to the shipbuilding program. But unless the amount of money available is more substantial than it was at the time we prepared our estimates, it is not likely that there will be any change in the program in so far as the immediate future is concerned. I am sorry about that, but these are the facts of life.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



TOBACCO-IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and, yesterday, the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Thomas) asked questions with regard to the importation of tobacco from South Africa.
Here is the answer: Statistics on trade show that a tobacco shipment was imported from South Africa on May 24, 1967. That shipment consisted of leaves, stems and leaf ends which all have different values. My department has instituted an inquiry concerning those values in South Africa and that information from South Africa is expected by the end of the month. There is no indication, in the meantime, that other shipments have been made from South Africa or that the imported tobacco came from Rhodesia.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could give us an idea as to the amount of tobacco which has been imported from the southern part of Africa in the last six months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member seeks statistical information and is not in order.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he or the government has been advised either directly or indirectly that the United States government is considering import surcharges to offset its deficiency in external payments and, if so, could he indicate what consideration is being given in this regard by the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I became aware of this I think in the same way as the hon. gentleman, by reading the newspaper this morning. Until then I was not aware of any such intention.

January 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry REFUSAL BY BANKS TO MAKE FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since the removal of the ceiling on interest rates the chartered banks in many instances are refusing to grant farm improvement loans and the impression is growing that the government has discontinued this program. Will the minister clarify this situation for the farmers of this country.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of some decline in the volume of farm improvement loans in recent months. Although reports as to the decline have in general been exaggerated, I know that it has existed. There is no doubt that this relates to the maximum rate of 5 per cent interest contained in the act. It has been in that act since 1944. I have received representations from the bankers associations and I now have under consideration recommendations in respect of amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which would permit some flexibility in the rate of interest. I have expressed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have expressed the hope to the bankers, and I am sure they will comply, that in the meantime the banks will continue to give their customary support to this program.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Keward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, some time before the Christmas recess the Minister of Transport informed us that he would report soon in respect of recommendations by the legal and justice committee in the field of highway deaths and injuries. Is the minister ready to make such report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I will be able to do so very soon.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.

member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) asked whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be engaged in a program of making speculative loans to builders. As previously indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), it is not the intention to have C.M.H.C. undertake a program of speculative loans to builders this spring, but rather that we concentrate our resources on loans for low rental housing. We believe that the approved lenders will look after builders' requirements for speculative loans.



CLARIFICATION OF LOANS REGULATIONS- REPLY BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, again yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) asked a question relating to the policy of C.M.H.C. in making loans in areas not built up but approved for development, when sewage disposal is by way of septic tank. In newly developing residential areas, C.M..H.C. has, since 1960, declined to approve or make loans where sewage disposal is by way of septic tank. This policy has been followed, notwithstanding that individual lots might be approved for septic tank use by the local health authorities. Experience has shown that the effect of the use of septic tanks in developing areas is cumulative in the pollution of soil and ground water, and therefore is prejudicial to all concerned in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I suggest his answer is going beyond the terms of the question itself.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the answer was inaccurate. I will look at it. But if the charge of inaccuracy arises out of the facts involved in the last part of my hon. friend's question, then I believe it was not inaccurate because the assistance given militarily to Tanzania does not constitute external aid. It is the same kind of assistance that the government of which my hon. friend was a member gave to Ghana. This is military assistance given to commonwealth countries, I think quite justifiably, for military purposes only.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, now that the minister is getting so definite in his answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I ask the minister this question. When an hon. member asks for the total amount of external aid given to a country, should the minister not include in that moneys that are given to that country under the heading of external affairs estimates of defence support assistance, to cover direct expenditures on behalf of countries not members of NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, "external aid" is defined by the members of the O.E.C.D. as including assistance to assist in the elevation of the standard of living of the recipient countries. Military assistance given by any country in the O.E.C.D. is not regarded as external aid and is certainly not so regarded in Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A final-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wants to pursue the matter further. This seems to be an argument between the hon. member and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought I would do it this way, Mr. Speaker, instead of raising a question of privilege, which would have prolonged the proceedings today. May I ask as a final supplementary question to the minister, whether it is not unwise for Canada to be expending amounts over $5 million per year to Tanzania by way of military assistance? Would that money not be better spent in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	5913
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend not believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend does not believe in the commonwealth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Public Works, but he seems to have disappeared.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to ask him whether any request has been made of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada to investigate whether there is any present or future danger of harm to the fisheries off our northeastern coasts from radioactivity as a result of the entry into the waters of that area of nuclear bombs near Thule, Greenland.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, this incident occurred only some 48 hours ago and I do not believe the Fisheries Research Board have had any opportunity to look into the matter. But if it affects Canadian fisheries, I want to assure the hon. member that all information possible will be provided.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say that he will ask the Fisheries Research Board to look into the matter? I realize they have not yet had time to make a report.


Mr. Robichaud:: What I said was that if there was any danger that it will affect our Canadian fisheries, the Fisheries Research Board will certainly look into it.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Would she advise us whether the government's decision with regard to E.T.V. is sufficiently far advanced to
January 24, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting allow her to give a positive answer on the META proposal from the city of Edmonton so that that organization, which has been standing by for the last 18 months, may not see all its work go down the drain?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure the latter will not be allowed to happen in any event. That work has been far too efficiently done and is far too enthusiastically supported. I think the hon. member realizes that the whole subject matter has been placed before the standing committee on broadcasting, which I understand is to resume its hearings on the subject as soon as the committee of the whole has disposed of the matter which is now before it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister understands that I meant the alternate or intermediate proposal which this organization put forward and which is awaiting the government's decision in due course.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works may I address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Will the government, on behalf of the parliament of Canada, be making known its views with regard to the proposal to erect a 39 storey structure only a few blocks from parliament hill?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the matter is of immediate urgency. Perhaps the question might be put on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would bring it to the attention of his minister.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163 to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related	provisions-Miss	La
Marsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2(d), with an amendment

proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer, was under consideration. Clause 2(c) was allowed to stand, with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac. I should like to suggest to the committee that perhaps the more orderly procedure now would be to revert to subclause (c) and to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac, and thereafter proceed to subclause 2(d) and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. Would the committee so agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We are now on clause 2 subclause (c). The hon. member for Compton-Frontenac moved that the words:
-subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
be deleted from lines 19 and 20 of clause 2 and that the following be inserted therefor:
-the right, for all Canadians, to receive, by any means whatsoever, all the programs broadcast and available, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
Subclause 2 (c) would then read as follows:
All persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the public effects of the programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression, the right, for all Canadians, to receive, by any means whatsoever, all the programs broadcast and available, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned:
fTranslation]


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I introduced yesterday concerned cablevision and not closed circuits directly, as the minister has said.
I did not understand very well what the minister said yesterday with regard to closed circuits, but in my opinion this amendment does not concern closed circuits only, but also cablevision and CATV.
I think that the bill is not very clear in this respect, and that subclause (c) should be amended as suggested in the amendment which I introduced, in order to be fair towards those who provide cablevision services.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) said yesterday that I owned a cable system; that is true. But there are many other cable systems in the province and that is why I think that all citizens and all companies who own and operate cable systems should be free to pick up programs and retransmit them through
January 24, 1968

their cables, by closed circuit. In fact, they should be free to retransmit programs which they pick off the air without being liable to penalization as mentioned in clause 2 (c). It is for that reason I moved this amendment.
I am convinced that the hon. members will consider and support it.
It would not be fair to penalize those who operate a television or radio service through cables, because they merely retransmit programs broadcast by other stations.
The minister should consider these factors, because they constitute the basis of my amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac and to the committee that it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment moved by the hon. member is irrevelant to subclause 2 (c) in that it introduces different methods of reception while the clause deals only with broadcasting in the sense to which the Broadcasting Act applies.
Second, it appears to the Chair that the phrase "by any means whatsoever" might well be interpreted as including methods of broadcasting not covered by this clause, or even by the bill or the act itself.
Third, it also seems to the Chair that the amendment is redundant with respect to subclause (e) of clause 2.
It is for these reasons and with regret that I must rule the amendment moved by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac out of order. Shall clause 2 (c) carry?


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I had not expected the amendment to be ruled out of order. However, the objection of the Chair that the introduction of new means of broadcasting is too wide perhaps fits in with the suggestion that I was going to make to the hon. member who moved the amendment, namely that the purpose of the amendment, as I see it, is to reassure the people of Canada, and to emphasize in the Broadcasting Act itself, that while it is necessary to regulate broadcasting and even to bring distribution systems under the Broadcasting Act, we in this house are very cognizant of the right of individual citizens to hear and see the programs that are available.
I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he delete the phrase "by any means whatsoever" from his amendment. I think this would have the effect of meeting the
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting objection that the Chair found to the introduction of extraneous matter. The objection of the Chair that this is already covered in subclause (e) would not apply, and there would then simply be added to the freedom of expression enunciated in subclause (c) the declaration of freedom to receive the broadcast programs that are available.
I would point out that this clause is already subject to the general regulations made under the act. If my suggestion were adopted there would simply be added to the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom to receive.
I suggest that here we are coming up tight against what is a fundamental concern to a great many Canadians in this country. I think we should consider that concern at this point, and I suggest this type of amendment provides a good vehicle to decide whether or not the government should be in the position to impose a kind of censorship on the programs people may see or hear.
It has been said by many that we can buy magazines from the United States and read what we like, that we can listen to the radio broadcasts from Moscow or somewhere else, and so on. Even though some attempts are made to jam certain programs, nevertheless anyone who has the necessary equipment can listen to any radio program he wants.
I suggest the same sort of reasoning applies to television sets. If the signal is in the airwaves and people can receive it, then they should be permitted to do so. In this connection it is cogently argued that, situated as we are close to the United States, the citizens of Canada are able to receive and enjoy powerful transmissions which emanate from that country. On the other hand, some parts of Canada farther away from the United States are not reached by these transmissions and the people in those areas are unable to view the programs.
It is also argued that by regulating cable networks we are discriminating against certain Canadians. In effect we are preventing one segment of the population from receiving programs they might like to receive whereas another segment-the largest segment of the population-has perfect freedom in this regard.
Certainly the question whether or not there is any attempt to inhibit people in their choice of program must be approached most carefully. I think generally speaking all members of the house would agree that there is no
5916	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting such thing as protecting people from propaganda, or trying to see they are not seduced by one or other kind of propaganda from foreign parts. Therefore any resort to an artificial means of controlling what may be seen and heard is so undesirable that the subject hardly need be discussed in the house.
One difficulty which arises here is this. The parliament of Canada controls the taxpayers' money, many millions of which is used for the purpose of advancing and protecting Canadianism-Canadian culture. Therefore, if we do not have some means to control broadcasting there is a distinct possibility that regulations made so loosely as to permit by any means whatsoever the distribution of United States programs could completely nullify the efforts of parliament in this regard. We do not want to spend the taxpayers' money for nothing, Mr. Chairman. Neither do we want to see parliament or the regulatory body passing regulations which would prevent people from using equipment that is available to receive programming. Nevertheless electronic equipment is available which could completely defeat what we are trying to do.
I am not sure that we are yet in a position to foresee what will happen when the whole of Canada is covered by satellite t.v. transmissions and there is no need for cablevision or for booster stations. The only way the people could be prevented from receiving these transmissions would be to try to jam the satellite broadcasts. I do not think anyone would argue with the proposition that it should be within the legislative ambit of the parliament of Canada to control the airwaves above this country and to regulate what may enter them. But it is a different matter when we ask whether we want to regulate what enters our airwaves; and if there is some proclivity in this direction it will be difficult to decide how we do this and to what extent.
I think that what is necessary at the moment is to put into the act simply a reminder that while the arguments for regulation are many, and while there is some concern about using in the best possible way money spent by the C.B.C. on the preservation of Canadianism, there is an overriding concern for the right of every citizen of this country to hear and see whatever programs he or she wishes.
When I put it in that way, Mr. Chairman, I have not forgotten that there does exist in our criminal legislation provisions in connection with certain types of seditious propaganda. For example we can regulate certain

DEBATES	January 24, 1968
kinds of questionable programs on the airwaves. Nevertheless, regulation of cablevision or other broadcasting systems should be for the primary purpose of preserving Canadian sovereignty over the means of communication in this country and to maintain an orderly use of airwaves and channels. In addition, its purpose should be the broadening of the possibilities of Canadians to see what can be seen in the best way possible and for the least money possible. Also, we should bear in mind that the money we are spending should have some effect in promoting Canadianism.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Though Your Honour has just ruled one amendment out of order I wish to move another amendment which is almost identical to it except that my amendment would leave out certain words that the Chair considered objectionable. The amendment I propose would add between the words "expression" and "subject" in line 19 thereof the following; "and the right of Canadians to receive all broadcasting programs available to them." That amendment would apply to subclause (c). The clause as amended would then read:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the public effects of the programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression and the right of Canadians to receive all broadcasting programs available to them, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
May I move that amendment, Mr. Chairman? I apologize to the minister for my lack of courtesy in not having advised her of the amendment. Yesterday I thought it would be some time before we would reach this clause and I was caught unprepared. The minister is entitled to notice of the amendment and I regret that I did not give her that notice.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I ask my hon. friend to stand this matter? Obviously he is reading from the wrong copy of the bill. His amended clause contains the words "public effects". Bill C-163, as reported back by the committee, did not contain that wording. If my hon. friend would stand his amendment perhaps he might refer to the new reprint of the bill and deal with the matter then. I have no objection to standing this matter for the time being.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thank the minister. May I ask the committee to give me time to consider?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 2(c)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 24, 1968


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will proceed with discussion of subclause 2(d) and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the next clause I wish to say that I am somewhat confused by the statement concerning the revised version of the bill. I presume that some hon. members have it.


Mr. Fairweather:: We all have it. There has been a new printing.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Well, I do not have a copy. It is not in my file of bills. I should like to obtain a new copy.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The committee will now proceed to clause 2(d). The hon. member for Red Deer moved an amendment to subclause (d). His amendment sought to insert after the words "public controversy" in line 5 of the bill the following:
"while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate consideration";
His amendment also sought to add, after the words "other resources", the words:
"while alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming".
Clause 2(d) would then read as follows:
"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, while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate consideration, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources, while alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming".


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I shall not repeat my remarks of last night. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the bill and it is intended to do nothing else. The amendment seeks to make it clear to management that they have a responsibility for program content. I believe it is just as necessary for this bill to provide management with guide lines for carrying out its responsibilities with respect to programming content as with respect to the technical side of broadcasting. These remarks apply to both the C.B.C. and the private sectors of broadcasting. I commend this amendment to the minister and to the committee. I trust that the amendment is acceptable and that members of the committee will support it.

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Miss LaMarsh: I regret that I cannot lend my support to the amendment. I am sympathetic toward the hon. member's intentions. We all hope what he hopes with respect to program content. I think that any manager worth his salt would feel that it is his responsibility to broadcast conflicting views on matters of public controversy. He would broadcast those views particularly that are reflected by large segments of the public. Nevertheless, I am afraid that what the hon. member seeks to do by way of amendment cannot be legislated.
During the committee proceedings members of my hon. friend's group came forward with amendments which in themselves were unobjectionable. Various amendments dealt with matters such as good taste. The wording of such amendments, or the spirit of such amendments, would be acceptable to anyone. But that spirit cannot appear in a piece of legislation.
I do not think that anyone should be required to decide, as a matter of statute law, what a broadly held opinion is. Those who are in this chamber or in public life know that broadly held opinions in this country may vary almost daily or almost hourly. To ask some individual to determine what a broadly held opinion is, is to place on that individual an unsupportable burden.
To require broadcasters to remain alert and responsive to public preference "in this and other aspects of programming" is placing great difficulties in their way. Though that wording may seem innocuous, it imposes a frightening stricture on those whom it may affect. For instance, they may be left open to charges that they are not alert and not responsive to public preferences. Public preferences change from time to time and they change sharply, as we all know. Though I may agree with my hon. friend's sentiment I cannot, on behalf of the government, agree to enshrine it in legislation. I must therefore inform my hon. friend, reluctantly, that I am not prepared to accept the amendment.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I support the essence and theme of the amendment that the hon. member for Red Deer has moved. In common with the hon. lady I admit that I am not satisfied with the precise wording of the amendment.
On December 21 I served notice to the minister and the committee when I was speaking in the general debate and taking an umbrella approach to the legislation that I intended to
January 24, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting move an amendment to subclause 2(d). I shall move amendments at subsequent stages of the bill dealing with other matters.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I find that in essence the approach taken by the hon. member for Red Deer has presaged my own. He has moved an amendment which I intend to support, but should that amendment fail to pass I shall move an amendment of my own which is worded somewhat differently but which is also calculated to provide the degree of responsibility and objectivity in the national broadcasting service that he and I, together with a good many other Canadians, desire and feel has been lacking in the public affairs sector of the C.B.C., particularly in television, in recent months if not in recent years. I cannot accept the position the minister takes with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer. With all due respect I submit that no undue restriction would be placed on management by the acceptance of an amendment worded in the form put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. Nor would undue restriction be caused by an amendment such as I intend to advance should the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer fail.
I believe Canadians have a right to expect of those in positions of authority in both public and private broadcasting that a high degree of responsibility implying conscientiousness in terms of objectivity of presentation will be striven for, achieved and maintained. This does not impose an undue restriction upon our broadcasters. In fact, it would constitute an important guide line which should in any case be provided for administrators in what, after all, is a relatively new industry, a relatively new profession. I for my part would be satisfied with an amendment which simply suggested that programming be planned and devised in such a way as to guarantee responsible and balanced treatment of subjects of public controversy. As I say, the wording I favour differs from that adopted by the hon. member for Red Deer. However, we share the same view as to the need for responsibility in broadcasting, a view which has been advanced by other members of the committee including, for example, the hon. member for Elgin and the hon. member for Leeds, during the debates which have taken place in this chamber in recent months.
We share the view that some set of guide lines in connection with objectivity in public


affairs broadcasting in this country is overdue. We share a measure of concern about the one-sided partisan approach which has been taken all too often in public affairs broadcasting, particularly by C.B.C. television. A great many Canadians are similarly concerned. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer is intended, as is my own, to be fair both to broadcasters and to the listening public. All it is intended to do is to place the onus for ensuring balanced presentation upon the management and operators of individual stations-I use the word "operators" not in a technical but in a literary sense. The intention is to place the onus upon these people to maintain a posture of concern with regard to program schedules in public affairs programming, for instance, an attitude which would ensure that where one viewpoint is presented to a substantial extent over a period of time an opportunity will then not only be provided but will be guaranteed for other points of view to be expressed.
This does not constitute a rigid stricture imposed on the management of radio or television stations. All management has to do is keep an eye on the programming schedule or else delegate others to do so, to "vet" the program schedule as a responsible authority in a profession which we all hope is rapidly becoming a responsible one. The least one can ask is that management maintain vigilance over the programming schedule and meet their responsibilities as persons in a position to shape public opinion and attitudes in Canada toward controversial issues of the day, making sure that the public affairs department balances off one set of opinions with another. I really do not think this is an unreasonable stricture to place upon the responsible authorities. For this reason I rise now to say, with respect, that the minister appeared in her answer to be tilting at windmills which do not exist. I take my stand in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I should like to change the metaphor just used by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. A few weeks ago the minister ran up a brave set of colours on the ship of broadcasting. It disturbed me this afternoon to see those colours run down at the first wisp of semantic gunpowder.
The problem, and the minister knows it, is that if subclause (d) is unamended by a further set of safeguards, it will become the Magna Carta of extremism. Forces wishing to present views held by few Canadians, if any,
January 24, 1968	COMMONS
will justify their actions by using subclause
(d)	and telling us they are taking advantage of the reasonable opportunity afforded for expressing conflicting views on matters of public controversy.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think even the hon. member for York South would agree that some months ago there was no necessity for the C.B.C. to bring a neo-nazi all the way from Germany to appear on one of its programs. But having decided not to bring him to Canada, the C.B.C. televised an interview with him. There should have been some responsibility to see that a measure of expression was given to the more generally held view in Canada regarding that menace to democratic life.
Unamended this bill will become the bill of rights for biased broadcasting. If we can interpret what "reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views" means, it seems to me we can equally well interpret what the expression "broadly held opinions" means so that those in charge may be alert to them. The C.B.C. has been dramatically unresponsive to public outcry on matters of public controversy. I believe it important that this bill spell out means whereby the public of Canada can call their creation, the C.B.C., to account.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one more comment in answer to the minister's remarks. After all the good lady has gone through during the last couple of years with regard to broadcasting and the C.B.C., it seems to me she should have more sympathy with the intent of this amendment. Management control of C.B.C. broadcasting during the past few years has not been satisfactory either to her or to the public. I do not know what she meant when she referred to rotten management, but if she was referring to the type of control management has had over programs then I agree it has been rotten management.
As has been mentioned, this legislation will become a bill of rights for both the public and the broadcasters. We are attempting to make it an adequate bill. It is our responsibility to put teeth and backbone in it in so far as we can legislate on these matters. I agree we cannot spell them out in detail, but I believe this amendment would strengthen the hand of management with respect to programming.
This amendment is a very legitimate and reasonable one. It is intended to do nothing
DEBATES	5919
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting more than strengthen the bill so far as management is concerned so that it will be able to provide the control which 1 was pleased to hear the hon. lady say she believed management must have over programming as well as over the technical and financial aspects of broadcasting. We are dealing with this bill in a nonpartisan manner, and again I urge members of the committee to support this amendment. In its present form the bill does not provide anything better than what we have had in the past so far as broadcasting is concerned. Unless we put a little more starch in the bill we will not have anything better than what we have had. It is with this intent that I appeal for support for the amendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the felicity of language to say how much I oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer. Sometimes it troubles me to think that the democratic fabric of this country cannot stand a little bit of abrasion once in a while. I do not always want to know what the broadly held views of the people of this country are. I think it is dangerous just to pay lip service to the most broadly held views. We should be hearing other views.
In my opinion it was a very good thing for this country-I am not talking about the mechanics of management because that is none of my business-to see the neo-nazi, von Thadden, and to have him exposed just as Rockwell was exposed. It brought back to memory the horror and the evil that were in the world in the decade prior to the second world war. Did the fabric of this country wither because von Thadden had a few minutes on the public broadcasting system? Of course it did not. We saw this man and the evil he represented. I do not want to hear only broadly held views. The broadly held views of this country have a thousand media, a thousand ways to be heard in newspapers, magazines and other publications. I think it is time that we heard other views in this country and I shudder to think of parliament exercising that type of control over our public media.
I am going to vote against this amendment. From his speech the other day I can only take it that the hon. member does not know what satire is. The other night the C.B.C. ran a little bit of satire on Noah, Moses and other interesting figures in the Old Testament. Can we not laugh any more in this country? It was amusing. Is our Christian belief to those who have it-there are many who do not
5920	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting have it-so fragile that we cannot talk about Noah and the ark? I think it must have been quite tough for Noah to spend all that time in the ark. That is all that young man was saying, but apparently the whole fabric of Christianity is supposed to have been placed in jeopardy in those few minutes. I think it is very dangerous for the public broadcasting system to have to spend all its time showing the broadly held opinions of Canadians. Those broadly held opinions have ample protection.


Robert Norman Thompson: You did not feel that way when von Thadden was to appear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I never said a word about von Thadden.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the verbal facility of the hon. member for Royal to express my feelings about the subject of public broadcasting. Time and time again in this chamber I have seen members rise to protest vehemently against certain types of programs which sometimes appear on our national broadcasting system, over it or through it, or however the programs are transmitted. But over the years it seems it has been impossible for the majority in this parliament, representing the majority of the Canadian people, to get it across to the people responsible for preparing programs that there is a certain type of program which is generally unacceptable to the people of this nation.
* (4:00 p.m.)
Some people like classical music, some like drama, some like public affairs programs. These are all good. Before I go further I would like to say that the C.B.C. has done a wonderful job in some respects and that I am all for the C.B.C. We in Canada need the C.B.C., but somewhere in the works there are producers who are able to put out programs which are unacceptable. In looking over the record it would seem that there are always some producers who keep on probing and probing the line of acceptability. Sometimes they are on the one side and sometimes on the other. Sometimes they go too far and sometimes they stay within the limits of acceptability. However, they seem to be forever probing that line, trying to get away with everything they can get away with.
I intend to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. It may not completely cover the situation. It is very difficult to take care of a situation of this kind in a legislative way, but at least the

DEBATES	January 24, 1968
amendment is an attempt to put more teeth in our broadcasting rules and regulations for the sake of control and keeping within the limits of general public acceptability the programs which are put out over our national system.
We can be proud of our national system. It belongs to all the Canadian people. Because it is a public system we have a public image to uphold, the image of the Canadian government. Whenever these unacceptable programs are put on the air we tend to destroy the image of the government, the identity of Canada, the image of Canada. That is what we do when we put these unacceptable programs on the air. Anything that can be done to strengthen the hand of the C.B.C. management so that they can control and manage these apparently uncontrollable and unmanageable producers within the organization will be an improvement. The more strength we can put in the hands of the management of the C.B.C. the better.
I am glad, therefore, to support this amendment and any other amendment which will tend to strengthen the hand of management. The C.B.C. is a great institution. Let us maintain the honour and integrity of that institution.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to intervene briefly in this discussion because I think a fundamental difference in philosophy has been revealed between those who support this amendment and those who, like myself, oppose it. I believe we are entirely wrong in thinking it is useful to attempt by legislation to deal with matters of taste and judgment or the sort of thing the hon. member for Middlesex West had in mind when he said we should not allow anything which is generally unacceptable to be put over the public broadcasting system. Who is to decide what is generally unacceptable? I suggest that if we have producers with competence and a reasonably intelligent management we must give them freedom not to decide what is generally acceptable to the public but to decide whether what is being done lives up to competent technical standards and leaves some freedom for the creative ability of the people doing the job.
If the suggestion is that the C.B.C. is to exercise censorship over these people who have to do the job and say that something is unacceptable to the public, then I would ask, what does this mean? What may be generally acceptable to one section of the public may be generally unacceptable to other sections. What does the hon. member for Red Deer
January 24, 1968	COMMONS
mean when he says the commission, I suppose, must be alert and respond to public preferences in this and other aspects of public programming? Of course they will be responsive in a general way in considering what public preferences may be but, as the hon. member for Royal said, it will be a sorry day when we have to wait and try to find out what is conventional, what is generally acceptable and what is the public preference before we allow creative artists and people of that ilk to deal with these matters.
May I add that the adoption of these words would be an absolute waste of time and energy. We cannot legislate by adding words. It has been suggested that we should strengthen the hand of management in dealing with these matters. I suggest that we would be doing precisely the opposite by putting in words of this sort. It has been suggested that the C.B.C. should be given the responsibility for censorship, which no sensible management would want to exercise. I believe that the principles of true liberalism-and I use the word with a small "1"-include the philosophy of freedom of thought and expression. I suggest that this type of amendment is not only illiberal but, if it has any effect at all, is also restrictive and damaging to the system we are trying to protect.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, this discussion is gradually becoming a discussion on the basic right of free speech. Some of the speeches we have heard seem to be crusading speeches which go much farther than the intent of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. As I look at the wording of the original clause I find that the only specific reference to any particular type of programming in subclause (d) of clause 2 is the following:
-should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy-
I would say that without this specific reference to controversial matters the first few words of the subclause really cover everything that is required in the field of programming. It reads:
-the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive-
That covers everything. I assume that the hon. member for Red Deer and others who have supported the amendment, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg South and a few others who have spoken, object that the only
DEBATES	5921
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting specific reference is the statement that controversial matters should be considered. It goes without saying that if there is wide and varied programming everything is covered. Yet it is stressed that we should emphasize controversial matters. The crusaders for freedom have criticized the amendment which I believe is quite mild in form. The amendment makes specific reference to another aspect of public communication in the following words:
-while ensuring that the most broadly held opinions receive appropriate consideration-
In other words, if we refer specifically to ensuring that there shall be controversy we must make sure also that non-controversial matters shall be taken into consideration. I see some of my friends in the New Democratic party smiling. If we are going to mention specifically that there must be controversy, then there is just as much reason to mention in addition the fact that the broader opinions accepted by the Canadian public should also be given consideration. If we go on in this way we can make this clause as long as an arm and deal with all items of communication which might be mentioned.
In my opinion all we need in Canada is a good Hyde Park corner such as there is in London where a person can go on any evening of the week or on any Sunday and talk about anything under the sun without restriction. You can shout into the breeze to your heart's content. A similar place in New York is called Bug House square. We do not have a Hyde Park corner in Canada and neither do we have a Bug House square. As a result we have tended in the past to turn our national broadcasting system into a Hyde Park corner and we emphasize the controversial aspects without emphasizing those things which are part of public opinion and of the body politic in Canada. I think such an institution might well be established in Canada. There is no attack on freedom in the words of the amendments, any more than there is an attack on freedom when you emphasize controversial matters. I support the amendment.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief observation in relation to the amendment which appears to me to reflect the fear of censorship about which we hear a great deal. It seems to suggest again our often expressed concern about protecting our misguided people.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Judge not lest ye be judged, Murdo.
5922	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: I have discovered from past experience that very often people are not afraid that they will be corrupted but that someone else will be corrupted by these things if we do not censor them to keep other people from hearing or seeing them.


Robert Norman Thompson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not realize we are not talking about censorship but rather about a clear channel of responsibility?
Mr. Marlin (Timmins) Censorship by any name is still censorship so far as I am concerned. I think we might do well if we all stopped for a moment and thought about this situation. We already have censorship of television programs. I have yet to see a television set that does not have a switch to shut off the set if you do not like a program. Perhaps we should pass an amendment requiring the manufacturer to put an extra large button on each set or something to remind people that if they do not like a program they have a switch to turn the set off.
I do not believe I am better equipped than anyone else to judge what my fellow Canadians should or should not see. I think they are perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves. I hope they in turn feel I am capable of deciding which programs I want to watch. We tend to get carried away sometimes by our attitude of protection for our fellow Canadians. They are perfectly capable of protecting themselves and they have ample opportunity to do so at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think the attitude which ought to have been taken by the hon. member for Greenwood when he spoke with some heat but not much light a little while ago should have been to strike out the whole clause. We have included in the bill under the general title of a broadcasting policy for Canada a clause which deals with programming. I have been told by people active in the television and radio fields that we should keep away from this area because there is such a variety of opinion in respect of programming. In any event the government has introduced this clause. For that reason it is important that members have something to say about it.
We start from the premise that there will be a wide variety of opinion as to what is suitable, interesting, desirable or undesirable. This is also true of ordinary theatrical productions as well as movies and art. What is agreeable to one person may be disagreeable to another. Having had this matter put before
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	January 24, 1968
us in respect of television we are entitled to express our opinions on programming. Unless we express those opinions there will be no guidance for those who are in charge; yet the government has proposed a guiding clause.
The government suggests that programming should be varied and comprehensive, that there should be an element of public controversy, or at least that it should not be avoided, and that it should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources. Those are four guide lines for C.B.C. management. They are a bit reminiscent of the guide lines laid down by the Prime Minister for his cabinet colleagues a couple of years ago and similar to the type of guide lines he should now produce for the candidates for leadership of the Liberal party.
People need guidance and the government is now suggesting that the directorate of the C.B.C. should have some guidance with regard to programming because it is in the area of programming that troubles have occurred in the past. We would not have had the many discussions here or investigations by committees unless there had been some public discontent about the nature of certain C.B.C. programs. The C.B.C. got itself into a great deal of difficulty over the years by attempting to go too far.
When I do not like a program, and particularly if it is a speech by a member of the N.D.P., I turn the set off. The hon. member for Timmins can rest happy in that regard. I am not an ardent t.v. fan. I prefer to read a newspaper, a book or Hansard. Nevertheless, I do watch a certain amount and I am able to form an opinion on whether or not I like a program. The C.B.C. has got itself into needless difficulty because of carelessness in respect of programming. I have never phoned a T.V. station to object to a program, nor have I written a letter to a station or to the management of the C.B.C.
I have not spoken frequently in the house on this subject. However, I am invited to do so now because this bill directs our attention to programming. I want the directorate of the C.B.C. to know what the members of this house think about programming, in addition to what they will read in these four guide lines to which I have referred. If we are going to have guide lines as suggested here I see no reason for rejecting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer or any other similar amendment. The directorate of the C.B.C. will then know precisely
January 24, 1968

what the members of parliament think about programming.


Mr. Priilie:: The amendment is directed to all broadcasting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that because it does relate to all broadcasting, private stations as well, and to anything in connection with broadcasting.
As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris so wisely asked, why draw particular attention to the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy? Why at this stage do we have to draw to the attention of broadcasters that this is what we think they should be doing? They have been doing this for years. Why do we specifically have to mention that, and who decides what is public controversy?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are certain people within the broadcasting field who make these decisions in some smoke-filled room. Talk about politicians making decisions in smoked-filled rooms! This is done by a handful of people in the broadcasting business in some smoke-filled room. They ask, I am sure, "What will be the subject for our discussion on the program next Sunday night? Let us see. There is a mysterious drug that somebody on some island in the Pacific ocean has taken and has died from it. Let us give that information to the public so that some of the students in our universities will get their hands on this drug and try it out as well." That is the type of program to which I object. These decisions are made by a handful of people sitting in some smoke-filled room.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Dalton Camp?


Gordon Minto Churchill: They come to a decision as to some subject of public controversy that they would like to bring before the people. Then there are the other manipulators who say they want to waken us up. They want people to engage in discussion. They want to alert us to the facts of life. A lot of this is such arrant and silly nonsense. There are quite a number of people here who have had a fair amount of experience of all facets of life and we do not need any more exhilarating ideas with regard to what we should experiment with and what we should do.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Speak for yourself on that point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a handfull of people somewhere deciding whether this would be
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting good. They say, "We will stir things up and then we will get letters, some objecting and some approving. We will count them up and see how many approve. If there are not enough people who approve, we will write to our friends and ask them to get a letter in quickly because we are on the short end of letters approving our program." I have been in politics long enough to know how some of these things are arranged.
I see no objection to the rather mild amendment moved by the hon. member. It has been years since I have been able to approve of anything put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. Mellowing as the years pass by, like the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and becoming very positive in my statements, I would like to say that for once I approve of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. I hope it will be incorporated in the guide lines for the directors of broadcasting so they will realize that in addition to matters of public controversy we would like some attention paid to opinions that are broadly held. We think that those opinions should also receive appropriate consideration. There is nothing wrong with that at all. If we must listen to opinions that are held by only a small segment of the population, can we not also have programs that will be viewed with interest by a broad section of the population? That is all this amendment is suggesting. Consequently, sir, I shall support the amendment.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief.
I merely want to say that our group wishes to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). It is an amendment which does not ask much, which is very simple, and which may mean a lot because it asks, for once in this house, to take into consideration the preferences of the general public and make an effort to give it a small service since it is the public that foots the bill.
I always considered the C.B.C. as an impenetrable place, in every sense, for serious people and those who want to keep a moral sense to their life. I think it is at the programming level that the difficulty arises. Some producers take advantage of television on the pretext that they have the right to express controversial ideas and, in fact, they express these ideas all year round to a population which wants sound programming, in keeping with its faith and its social condition.
5924	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
In fact, we are not in Africa, we are in Canada, in a democratic country and I believe it is time for the government, if it intends to act-and I am not sure that such is its intention-to clean up this stable of the C.B.C.
Too often, we find producers like Mr. Kea-ble on the program "Tirez au Clair" or others who, ever so often, present the best atheists, the best unbelievers and the best free-thinkers, when it is not homosexuals or lesbians. Those programs are presented and we have to look at them, because there is only one channel in our area.
I was listening to the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) saying: Turn off your television set. That is easy to say, but it seems that the members of the New Democratic party have taken the pledge to wallow in all these questions. It seems that this is their role in the house and when it is a question of protecting a bandit, defending an atheist, we can be sure they will be there.
Mr. Chairman, I say it is time to defend the general public whose business this is because, after all, they are footing the $100 million deficit that the C.B.C. accumulates, to poison, soil and corrupt our youth.
Mr. Chairman, I think that if the government wants to do something, the bill under consideration at the present time provides a unique opportunity. It is time

I have said it many times-to do a clean-up job at the C.B.C. It is time to stop using any kind of language and boldly going even as far as to say: if you are not satisfied, turn off your television set. No, Mr. Chairman, we will not turn off our television sets, we will close some C.B.C. offices, because they are too dirty. That is what must be closed. The time has come for Christians in Canada, who still have an ounce of morality, to wake up and protest.
We are happy and we thank the hon. member for Red Deer for moving that amendment which is quite simple. I would have liked it to be even more categorical but I am satisfied in view of its consistency and we shall be happy to support it.
We ask the government to make a special effort in that direction, without waiting for the clause by clause consideration of the bill, and to bring in any amendments as required, so that the bill will be more conformable and adapted to the people which it is intended to serve.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to two or three matters which
(Mr. Gauthier.]
DEBATES	January 24, 1968
relate to the discussion we have been having this afternoon. It has been a very interesting discussion. It seems to me, however, that we are missing two or three important points in the discussion of this amendment. The first one seems to be an assumption made by those who support the amendment, or at least support it in speaking to it, that we will in some way be able to exalt and preserve mediocrity.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I for one am not one of those who believe that the broadcasting system which is operated in the public service is meant only to perpetuate ideas commonly and publicly held. When we deal with something as important to the lifeblood of the nation's mentality as the broadcasting system, it seems to me that what we should expect to receive from it from time to time are things which are disturbing to our minds and to our consciences. If we are not going to require that we receive such things from time to time from the broadcasting system, then we are simply paying for amplified mediocrity. I feel there is an element in the amendment as it is proposed that would merely preserve for all of us a kind of bland public opinion which would do little for the edification of the Canadian people generally. It would be sad to see the public broadcasting system descend to this kind of performance.
May I point out also that I believe there is an incipient or subtle anti-Canadianism in this amendment which disturbs me greatly. In the second part of the amendment, following the words "Canadian creative and other resources" it is suggested we add the words "While alert and responsive to public preferences in this and other aspects of programming". All of us in this chamber know, I think, that we have created, almost against the stream of public opinion, a broadcasting system in this country in order to preserve some kind of cultural identity in the great sea of communications and propaganda which washes over us on a regular hour by hour and day by day basis from the great nation to the south of us. If the subject and the content of broadcasting were left purely to the majority of public opinion we would have no effective Canadian broadcasting in this country, and we should face that fact. By supporting this kind of amendment we would be chipping away a little bit here and a little bit there at the concept of truly worth-while broadcasting in this country.
I for one do not plan to support the amendment. Hon. members have suggested in the debate this afternoon that freedom is not
January 24, 1968

being attacked in these two amendments. On the surface they seem to be rather innocuous and inoffensive, but I would remind hon. members that freedom is not usually destroyed by frontal attacks. Freedoms do not disappear simply because someone suddenly stands up and says: I move we do away with this or that freedom. Freedom disappears by being chipped away a little bit at a time. If we allow this to happen in this way this afternoon, similar chipping away will take place tomorrow and henceforth until we will find we have deprived ourselves of a valuable instrument of freedom in this country, namely broadcasting. I urge all hon. members on both sides of the house to realize that in supporting this kind of amendment we are supporting a very real reduction in the concept of freedom of speech as we have allowed it in our institutions.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I only want to answer, as briefly as possible, certain remarks just made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), in a much less gentle tone than I intend to take.
I wish to say first what seems obvious to me, namely that the hon. member for Roberval has spoken without being fully informed.
It is very easy to watch television one hour or two every week, and suddenly to come across a program that one finds shocking, that offends one's prejudices, one's opinions, even one's tastes, that are quite peculiar, and then to infer that all television or radio programs are steeped in corruption and lies.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Roberval has not quoted any statistics, that everything he has said may very well be only a few exceptions, because if he were able to draw up those statistics himself, he would then have to watch television seven or eight hours a day and, therefore, he certainly could not perform his duties as a member of parliament. I would rather think that the member for Roberval denies himself television and does his work as a member. This means that his attack is certainly, presumably, based on very doubtful facts, at any rate, extremely incomplete facts.
Another indication that the member for Roberval does not know the facts is his attack against the moderator of a program, in this case, Mr. Keable. This moderator expressed views which displeased me; indeed, he probably displeased everybody. But if the member for Roberval was familiar with the question, 27053-3742
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting if only he had followed the work of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, he would know that the moderator is not responsible for the text but that the producer is. He would know moreover that the moderator does not choose the participants, and that Mr. Keable could not therefore impose, deliberately and maliciously, atheistic participants or whatever other epithets the member for Roberval used. Even if people of that caliber were imposed, which I doubt, in any case it is certainly not Mr. Keable who is responsible but, again, the producer of the program, whose own work was controlled by a supervisor.
With rgeard to the amendment as a whole, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I feel I must vote against it, because if I had to qualify it, I would call it a conformist amendment. Unless the mover of this amendment is a conformist himself, I think he would be extremely disappointed in the effect which this amendment might have on the production of radio and television broadcasts. For radio and television, like all other creative arts, are stifled by conformism and are only truly creative if there is freedom of artistic expression and if they force the audience itself to get out of its intellectual rut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: When the hon. member for Roberval speaks of doing a clean-up job and calls the C.B.C. a stable, I think that he is using language not only unworthy of the C.B.C. but also unworthy of this house. Furthermore, I will say that it is unworthy of himself. He was certainly carried away by his own feelings and his own views.
It is agreed-I think that it is unavoidable-and everybody-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I put a
question to the hon. member? I would like to take this opportunity to ask him a question.


Gérard Pelletier: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: Has he not himself used the word "trash-can" with reference to the Liberal party?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Gérard Pelletier: If the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) were kind enough to wait until I finish my remarks, I would be glad to answer his question.
5g26	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I come to the end of my remarks, and I would say in concluding that the factors included in that amendment are restrictive and could seriously fail to attain the objectives expected by the mover-that is the elimination of certain abuses, of certain persons and of certain errors which nobody contests, and a large part of which are inevitable-but reduce to nothing an art and a means of communication living on creative spirit, by imposing the law of conformism on them.
I am now ready to answer the question of the hon. member for Lapointe, if he wishes, e (4:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to amuse myself at the expense of the member for Hochelaga. I noticed he thought it was peculiar to use the word "stables"; I was going to ask him whether he was not himself saying a bit more than he intended when he used the expression "trash-can of the Liberal party"?


Gérard Pelletier: I am very pleased to answer that question which shows that the member for Lapointe is as poorly informed as the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). It was stated here

the member for Lapointe would remember it, had he been in the house that evening-that I did not use that expression. The former leader of the opposition already accused me then of using the expression "Liberal trash-can" and I rose on a question of privilege to tell him that I was not the author of that expression, but that Mr. Claude Ryan was, and that I respected Mr. Claude Ryan's property.
The member for Lapointe was probably sailing then on waters calmer than parliamentary waters, and he missed that. His question is therefore pointless, since I am not the one who coined that phrase.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
I cannot ignore the preposterous assertions of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), when he says that I am not qualified to discuss television matters, because I do not watch television ten hours a day. I readily admit that I do not have time to watch television ten hours a day and, besides, no single member is able to watch programs-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. Would the hon. member state his question of privilege?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is to the effect that the hon.

DEBATES	January 24, 1968
member for Hochelaga has suggested that I am not competent enough to discuss television, and I wish to show the house that perhaps I know more about it than he does, because I belong to a different social circle and I am defending my milieu. I believe that he does not even belong to any social circle.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that there is no question of privilege, but rather that this is a question of interpretation. The hon. member for Hochelaga is entitled to his opinion; he has expressed an opinion, and I must say that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Roberval is unfounded.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, is it not a
question of privilege when I am told that I am not competent because I have not watched television?
In my remarks I simply indicated that some programs were blameworthy, which the member for Hochelaga admitted.
The member for Hochelaga has misrepresented my speech. I did not say that all programs were bad; I said that some programs were. This involves two or three programs which are bad. There is possibly one program out of 10,000 which is bad, y10o of one per cent, but it is bad nevertheless and this does not involve the whole of Canada. Let the member for Hochelaga stop his nonsense. Let him start by sitting in the house and contribute to the public whatever he has to offer.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order,
please.


Mr. Nowlan:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to say too much on this subclause. I think that the discussion we have had this afternoon indicates very clearly to the minister the difficulty of keeping a provision such as subclause (d) relating to programming in the bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, with whom I do not always agree, was in a felicitous and good Christmas mood when he agreed with the hon. member for Red Deer but, as I say, I do not always agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and he obviously does not agree with me in this instance. This is the way that parliament works. In this case, I think he had a very valid point, and before I conclude my remarks I want to ask the minister a question.
January 24, 1968	COMMONS
I am wondering why subclause (d) is in the bill at all, because in the matter of programming one is bound to run into the difficulty of subjective interpretations of the kind given here which cover a whole range of moods, thoughts, emotions and opinions. I cannot see the need for subclause (d) in view of subclause (g). Here I take exception to what was said by the hon. member for Prince who spoke eloquently, though to my mind mis-guidedly, on subclause (d). He suggested that this amendment, which I am sure leaves much to be desired though it is trying to express thoughts that many of us have, infringes upon other matters. The minister and the hon. member for Royal, both renowned lawyers, realize that when you start to set out specific provisions you must continue to set them out; otherwise things are left up in the air. I do not think that parliament should become involved in setting up terms of references in regard to programming. This is a matter that should be left to those employed by the corporation and by private television companies.
The hon. member for Greenwood, who spoke as a liberal in the true sense-whatever that may mean in these days-really did not go far enough. I suggest he should not lambaste those who propose other terms of reference. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre suggested there were four; I find six, and they are "varied", "comprehensive", "public controversy", "high standard", "Canadian creative" and "other resources". Obviously other hon. members can suggest additional terms of reference, but I think that the hon. member for Greenwood would agree with me-I hope the minister will consider this-when I say we do not need subclause
(d)	because parliament should not become involved in setting out terms of reference in the matter of programming.
So far as my hon. friend from Prince is concerned, since we are talking about freedom of speech and Canadianism and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer would impinge upon these two sacred cows, I would ask him to read the wording contained in subclause (g) which in my opinion takes care of the problem we find in subclause (d). Subclause (g) talks about the national broadcasting service and says it should be certain things. For example, it should be a balanced service of information. If this is mediocrity then it has committed the sin referred to by the hon. member for Prince. Obviously if information is given on both sides of a question controversy will be
DEBATES	5927
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting involved. I suggest that information runs right through the middle of subclause (d). Then subclause (g) says the national broadcasting service should provide enlightenment and entertainment, and this is part of programming.
On the matter of Canadianism subclause (g) (iv) says that the national broadcasting service should:
-contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity;
I suggest that parliament should steer clear of anything having to do with programming and that it should leave it up to the people who are appointed to decide on programming, to the producers and those in the C.B.C. who have the necessary creative talent. There are bound to be reactions from time to time when a program goes too far.
At this point I should like to ask the minister a question, though I have not yet finished my remarks. Is there any section in any act in England which refers specifically to programming?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This is Canada, not England.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that, but you are worrying about censorship. A big red herring has been dragged through this debate in connection with the curtailment of the freedom of speech and censorship. Therefore I should like to know, on a point of information, whether the minister is aware of any statute on the books in England which specifically relates to programming?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not certain of that, Mr. Chairman. Had the hon. member been a member of the broadcasting committee which dealt with this bill for some five weeks on the understanding that when it came back to the chamber we would spend two days on it, he would be aware that the B.B.C. is an entity set up under charter by the postmaster general of England. The P.M.G. can give this body directions. It is set up differently from the way the C.B.C. has been set up heretofore.
While I have no desire to interrupt my hon. friend in the full flood of his rhetoric, I think he should be aware of something that may have escaped those who are not committee members, as is apparent from some of the speeches I have heard, namely that two matters are dealt with in this subclause. The subclause deals with the Canadian broadcasting system, which is public, and also with private
5928	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting broadcasting. What is dealt with in subclause (g) is the national broadcasting service that is provided purely by the C.B.C.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then, am I interpreting the minister's remarks correctly when I take it that she cannot say that there is anything in the English law that specifically refers to programming? Is that correct?
Speaking of the suggestion that (d) and (g) have different purposes, I still say that (d) refers specifically to programming, public and private. We have been speaking this afternoon of the C.B.C. which is supported by the taxpayer's money. Certainly, to my way of thinking, (d) is encompassed by (g).
I am afraid I was not a member of the committee; I wish I had been because I should not take so much time now. I submit that the C.B.C. is causing concern to parliament because the C.B.C. is a creature of parliament. The terms of reference which are set out in (g) take care, I submit of the arguments or red herrings which have been raised by the hon. member for Prince.
In the legal sense, certainly, there is nothing inherently wrong with parliament becoming involved with programming. Obviously, if you list terms of reference you will run into opposition; someone will oppose some of those terms of reference. The answer is to remove (d). Let competition take care of the C.T.V. people. Let the good judgment of managers determine what constitutes good programming content. Let the people in the C.B.C. have a free hand so far as programming is concerned. If you do that you can remove (d) because that subclause tries to define or to legislate good taste. Remove (d) and parliament need not define good taste.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. friend on a number of points. I, too, wish that he had been a member of the committee. I hope he will forgive my making a reference to his father, the distinguished member who was the predecessor in his seat. The hon. member's father enjoyed perhaps his greatest fame for the efficacious way in which he handled his responsibilities as the minister reporting for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wish to say a number of things about (d). Members of the committee and members of the house generally have been as concerned as those in the performing arts

DEBATES	January 24, 1968
in Canada have been with respect to the use of creative talent of Canadian origin in broadcasting in Canada. This clause contains the only reference to such talent; there is no other similar reference in the bill. It will be noted particularly that the words "creative and other" were included in the subclause as a result of committee action and a brief from ACTRA.
Second, though I do not know what is incorporated in the charter of the B.B.C. with respect to programming, it seems to me that a criticism which has been levelled particularly at our 1958 broadcasting legislation, which we are seeking to replace with this legislation, is that it did not make sufficiently clear the role of C.B.C. This subclause in particular is unlike anything which appears in any Canadian legislation, save the new transport legislation. We are having difficulty at the present time because the kinds of things which are set out in this bill are not the kinds of things which Canadian legislation heretofore has dealt with.
Because the role of the C.B.C. was not clearly set out previously, particularly in the last few years some of those in management had their own ideas of what could be done. Unquestionably the responsibility of management is to manage. Nevertheless, to paraphrase some words that appeared in the Fowler report on broadcasting, the only thing that really matters in broadcasting is program; the rest is housekeeping. I submit that to spend untold thousands of dollars over several years in looking into public broadcasting in Canada, after all the reports we have received, after the travail we have gone through in bringing this bill before a committee and then to this stage, would be for us to engage in an exercise of futility. I do not say that it is easy for us to come to a decision with respect to the programming of broadcasts, both public and private, in Canada but it is our responsibility to do that.
The government and the house ask the people to contribute over $100 million in tax money for the support of the public side of broadcasting. About the same amount of money comes out of the public purse for something that is certainly not free, the private side of broadcasting.


An hon. Member:: More.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Between $200 to $300 million of Canada's gross national product every year is spent on something that is not concrete, on something that goes out over the air. I refer to programs which are broadcast.
January 24, 1968

In the most liberal way we have tried to provide the framework for how the money spent on broadcasting by the public and private sectors shall be spent. We have tried not to dictate in matters of taste and we have tried not to circumscribe those who are hired to do the job they have to do. I say, therefore, that it is imperative that subclause (d) remain in the bill and I hope that the amendment now before the committee and any subsequent similar amendments will be defeated and that this subclause will be retained.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I ask the hon. lady a question? She may wish to consider what I am about to ask. She may reflect overnight, if she likes, with her advisers on my question.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the hon. lady honestly believe that subclause (d), as it is now printed, gives direction to the C.B.C. which is clearer than the direction contained in subclauses (g) (i) and (g) (iv) ?


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am talking about the C.B.C.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, (d) and (g) deal with different matters. It will be seen that (d) says that the public and private broadcasters of this country shall air both sides of any question which deals with matters of public controversy. The standard of presentation is to be as high as possible, and predominantly Canadian creative talent is to be used. That is what it says in (d). On the other hand, (g) is a special case. Under it a mandate is being given to the C.B.C. for the first time by this parliament. For instance, (gXi) contains new language; that subclause incorporates the C.B.C.'s idea of what its mandate should be.
Many people disagree about what the C.B.C. should show. Some say that it should show nothing but sports, that we should have N.H.L. hockey games every night of the week. Others say that the C.B.C. should show nothing but a variety of educational programs. Still others say that the C.B.C. ought to show all sorts of live drama, and others say that we should not have so much music but more religious programs.
Under this subclause parliament requires the C.B.C. to provide something for everybody in Canada, in a reasonable mix. That is specifically required of the C.B.C. and for
Expropriation Act
that purpose it takes the taxpayers' money. In particular, since the C.B.C. is the instrument which is under the hand of the people of Canada through their parliament, the C.B.C. particularly is the instrument which must be wielded as the communication instrument to build national unity in Canada. Subclauses (d) and (g) are different in character and purpose.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: May I ask
the minister one more question?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
9 (5:00 p.m.)


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



EXPROPRIATION ACT


Robert Norman Thompson: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to amending the provisions of the Expropriation Act (R.S.C. 1952, c. 106) with a view to giving greater protection to citizens against arbitrary interference with their property rights by departments of the federal government, and to the establishment of more suitable procedures for the transfer of title and possession of land expropriated under the authority of this Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days several members of the house have asked me what prompted me to introduce this motion, as I have done for the past four years. May I refer to an incident that occurred in January of 1964 which resulted in my becoming personally familiar with the Expropriation Act now on the statute books. At that time the Department of National Defence had expropriated a quarter section of land from a farmer in my constituency for the purpose of constructing communication towers necessary for defence installations. The department moved in to acquire the land. The farmer protested; he did not think the settlement offered was fair. He did not wish to give up his land. As a result the department made an arrangement by which he

January 24, 1968
Expropriation Act
could continue to live on the land and pasture his cattle there. The men involved in the construction of the towers repeatedly left the gates open and as a result the cattle got out on to the road allowance. The farmer became angry and an unfortunate situation developed between him, his neighbours in the community where he lived, and the Department of National Defence. Finally the Department of National Defence decided to use the Expropriation Act to take over this land forcibly.
Early in January, 1964, while the house was in recess, I received an urgent message for help. I drove out some ten miles to this property to find that a carload of R.C.M.P. and two truckloads of army personnel were already there together with another truck to haul away personal effects and a stockliner to haul away the stock. The pigs had got out of the chute and soldiers were chasing them through the snowdrifts. The officer in charge had lost his composure and had given the soldiers orders to use axes on the walls of the house and demolish it to the extent that the farmer could no longer live in it. By the time I arrived an angry crowd of neighbours had gathered and we were on the verge of a war between them and the military personnel.
The action taken on this occasion was entirely contrary to provincial laws which do not permit a man to be evicted during the winter months. Further, it was entirely contrary to the expropriation legislation of the province of Alberta which through certain provisions in the provincial legislation protects the rights of individuals when the government finds it necessary to take over private property.
Government expropriation of private property is an unfortunate necessity in the planned development of our cities and towns, but the rules which govern expropriation should require that the needs of the property owner be weighed against the needs of the state. Not only must there be the assurance of fair compensation and adequate warning to property owners that their land is to be expropriated, but public hearings must be held before a judge to determine whether the action is necessary and is in the public interest. Justice demands that no citizen should be deprived of his property without such a hearing. Expropriation powers which permit the filing of a plan to take away the ownership of a man's land when his certificate of title tells him he is still the owner are the reason I have placed this resolution before the house urging that the government amend the Expropriation Act.

Abraham Lincoln once said that when individual rights and property rights conflict, the rights of the individual must be given first place. I believe this is an important statement. When I came back to Ottawa to investigate just what were the expropriation laws of the land which permitted the Department of National Defence to take the action it did against this farmer, I was amazed to find that practically everybody in the department as well as the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) and the former minister of justice were in agreement that the expropriation law should be amended to make it less severe. In fact, committees had been working to this effect for a number of years but seemingly they never reached the point at which their findings were incorporated into legislation and presented to the house.
As I interpret the Expropriation Act, the mere fact that we here in parliament pass an act approving the construction of any public work gives officers of the civil service down to quite junior level the right, by merely drawing up and filing a plan in the appropriate registry office, to deprive a citizen of the land he owns and upon which he lives, leaving him nothing except the right to go to a court to collect some money. There is no requirement to follow the usual provincial laws in connection with transfer of title. There is no requirement for a public hearing to find out whether the land is indeed needed for public purposes. In a nation which has placed the legislative fields of property and civil rights within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, the powers granted by this act seems to border on the unconstitutional.
It might indeed be reasonable that in time of war and imminent danger to this country the federal government should have such powers. It was during such times that the present law was passed by this house. In other words, this is emergency legislation, amended in the early years of the second world war and intended to meet the demands of that emergency. It has never been amended to suit peacetime needs and to protect the rights of individual Canadians.
Powers such as these do not belong in the Expropriation Act. They belong in the War Measures Act. We already have far too much punitive federal law on our statute books. I am thinking particularly now of the Income Tax Act and of some provisions of the Excise Tax Act which are justifiable enough in times of national emergency but are an open threat to the liberty and property of citizens now
January 24, 1968

that this country has been at peace for 20 or more years.
This act has been used as a club in the hands of the National Capital Commission. I have been much interested in a case between Ethel V. Grayson and the Queen in reference to which Chief Justice Thorson of the exchequer court had this to say:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Under these provisions a man's land can be lawfully taken from him without his consent, and even without his knowledge or any notice to him, merely by the deposit of record in the proper land titles or land registry office of a duly signed plan and description of the land. This may be done whenever the minister of the department charged with the construction and maintenance of the public work for which the land is to be taken deems it advisable to do so. On such deposit the expropriation of the land is complete without any further act by anyone. Whatever right, title or interest the former owner, or any other person, had in or to the land is immediately extinguished and the land is automatically vested in Her Majesty the Queen free and clear of any claims to or encumbrances upon it. All that is left to the former owner of the land, or a person having had a claim to or an encumbrance upon it, is a claim to compensation, which by section 23 of the act is made to stand in the stead of the land. And I might add here that the settlement of claims to compensation is frequently unconscionably delayed.
I have frequently called attention to these provisions of the law and stated that Canada has the most arbitrary system of expropriation of land in the whole of the civilized world. I am not aware of any other country in the civilized world that exercises its right of eminent domain in the arbitrary manner that Canada does. And unfortunately, the example set by Canada has infected several of the Canadian provinces in which a similar system of expropriation has been adopted.
These words come from a man whose knowledge of the law is without question. He made this statement in one of the very few cases where an individual who had his land expropriated had the means to appeal to the only court available to him, the exchequer court. I know of one case of land expropriation by the National Capital Commission in which a man living within the confines of the metropolitan city of Ottawa took his case to the exchequer court but finally gave up after spending some $28,000 or $29,000 in the presentation of his case. Yet we call this justice. It is time we did something about it.
It is not good enough that we go on and on saying that this law is not the right kind of law and that we must revise it. We simply have not enacted legislation to amend it, to make it as just as it should be and as just as every citizen of our country expects it to be. I believe it would be very easy and proper to provide that before any land is taken for a
Expropriation Act
public purpose by expropriation, except in time of war, a public hearing should be held before a judge so that everyone can be satisfied that it is in the public interest for that land to be taken. No citizen, I believe, should ever be deprived of his property without at least having the privilege of his day in court.
Second, I believe the exact method of expropriation should be spelled out, such as a certain number of days' notice, and disclosure of the intent of the authority. In addition, a safeguard should be provided so that no land would be expropriated unnecessarily or by mistake. I can cite a number of cases of expropriation by the National Capital Commission where this actually was the case, but the land was never returned to the owners from whom it was expropriated after the N.C.C. did not carry out the purpose for which it stated it required the land at the time of expropriation.
I suggest that a clause be inserted elsewhere in the statutes of Canada guaranteeing Canadian citizens the right to own property and that this clause should be specifically quoted in the Expropriation Act. If we did this we would be protecting the rights of Canadian citizens as they deserve to be protected.
Again I say, referring to the words of wisdom passed on to us by Abraham Lincoln, that when individual rights and property rights are in question the right of the individual must be given first place. Mr. Speaker, the expropriation laws of this country do not give the individual citizen first place. Consequently it is high time the government amended those laws in such a way that the rights of the individual Canadian citizen to property ownership are respected and guaranteed.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the mover of this motion. He has brought up a most important subject. However, I do not agree with all his remarks and conclusions.
The entire matter of expropriation was brought forcibly to my attention in December, 1965, when the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority expropriated approximately 4,000 acres in the Welland area for a Welland canal bypass. This was a major land acquisition and affected the welfare of approximately 330 families. The impact on my riding was far reaching and most dramatic. It made me aware of possible injustices and possible inadequacies in our existing expropriation laws.
5S32

January 24, 1968
Expropriation Act
My remarks are neither in defence nor criticism of the present government. Our federal expropriation laws have been in existence for many years, under both Conservative and Liberal administrations, so there is no partisan blame to be assigned. I know that various governments have considered changes in these laws but, as often happens with this type of obscure legislation, with no aggressive lobby to promote changes lethargy sets in and no action is taken. However, I am happy to relate to the house that something is being done. The government is reviewing the entire situation with respect to expropriation and intends to bring in radical amendments to our expropriation laws. I do not believe this will be in this session. I hope it will be in the next session. This brings up a most important point.
The lack of review of many of our statutes indicates a real need for a continuing perusal of all our statutes to ensure their adequacy to meet changing times, conditions and circumstances. Therefore I advocate most strongly the establishment of a permanent law reform committee to appraise our statutes continually, including such ones as the federal Expropriation Act which was first enacted in 1886. This permanent committee could be comprised of government representatives, members from all parties in the house, and recognized experts in all broad fields of knowledge which affect the material and spiritual wellbeing of our citizens. It would be their duty to examine all existing statutes and make recommendations for change.
A prime example of this need was our divorce act. It had been in force for many years without change. It was entirely discordant with present codes of conduct, family views and marriage concepts. For years thousands of Canadians suffered under that antiquated and unjust act. Eventually the general opposition to it seeped through to parliamentarians and finally action was taken. A law reform committee could have made a study of that statute and made recommendations to the government in power perhaps years ago. In all probability the net result would have been the earlier rectification of the most unsatisfactory state of our divorce laws.
The reason I make these observations at this time is that the motion before the house, urging the government to consider changes in the law of expropriation, clearly indicates the necessity for a permanent type of law revision or reform committee to be given the

responsibility of continually reviewing our statutes.
As I have indicated, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority expropriated 4,000 acres in the Welland area. Thus it can be seen that the whole question of expropriation is most important and far reaching. At the present time another gigantic expropriation is taking place in the St. Catharines area. Expropriations are being carried out all across Canada. More will follow. I agree with the mover of this motion that a change in the laws should be made as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Let us take a brief glimpse at the history of expropriation. In our contemporary society property right is no longer the absolute right it used to be years ago, no matter what Abraham Lincoln said about it. Ownership of real estate is now subject to all kinds of regulations concerning town planning, zoning and construction bylaws. One of the most radical encroachments on private property rights is the power to expropriate. Expropriation in Canada is governed by statutory law, and some of the statutes provide for compensation and some do not.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is perhaps a revelation to members of the house. When dealing with existing expropriation legislation in Canada one starts off with the premise that expropriation is one case in modern life where public and private interests clash. The first important question in matters of expropriation is to find out who has the right to expropriate one's property and what this right is. The right to expropriate, being an unusual and far reaching right, must be found in the express words in the statute.
It should be observed that owing to Canada's federal constitution and the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments there are two sets of expropriation laws, federal and provincial. The most important act so far as the federal government is concerned is the Expropriation Act. Under this act the minister of any federal government department charged with the construction and maintenance of any public work may take possession of any land, real property, water or stream which he judges to be necessary for the public welfare.
In addition to the Expropriation Act at least one dozen acts of parliament give expropriation powers to federal bodies including crown corporations. Some of these are the
January 24, 1968

Railway Act, the War Measures Act, the National Harbours Board Act, the Dominion Water Power Act and the Canadian Broadcasting Act. In the province of Ontario approximately 17 different acts include provisions by which the powers of expropriation can be exercised. It should be noted that expropriation proceedings are divided into two parts, the expropriation itself which results in the transfer of the owner's title to property to the expropriating body and the allocation of compensation for the land expropriated.
In practical terms-and I agree with the previous speaker-there is nothing one can do to oppose the principle of expropriation. There is no requirement that notice be given. Immediately the order is registered and title passes the expropriating authority can take possession. On the surface this would appear to be a most drastic and perhaps arbitrary procedure, but I think it should be given some consideration. I believe there is another side of the coin. If notice were given and there was a court hearing, in all probability-this has been the experience in the past-land speculators would buy up these properties. Fast sales would be made and when the actual expropriation took place the price of the land would be highly inflated. Although the idea of sudden expropriation perhaps has a traumatic effect on the owner involved, the purpose is to freeze the land values for one purpose, that the public, Canadian citizens, are not paying more for the land than they should.
Once the land is formally expropriated the next vexing question is how to arrive at the amount of compensation. In principle the compensation should place the owner in the same economic position he was in before the expropriation. Unfortunately, variations in the wording of different statutes have led the courts to apply somewhat different standards under different statutes for determining the compensation. Authorities on the matter all agree that there is a definite need for a uniform procedure in effecting expropriation, coupled with uniform compensation provisions.
The expropriating authority normally obtains an appraisal of the property. If through negotiation the two parties agree, that is the end of the matter. If there is disagreement the party which is the expropriating authority obtains another appraisal. If there is still disagreement the only recourse is to the exchequer court. So it can be seen that the expropriation procedure in
Expropriation Act
Canada is drastic and final but, if due consideration is given to it, I believe it will be apparent that perhaps in the general interest of the Canadian taxpayer this type of procedure is necessary.
The principles for determining compensation are most important to the parties concerned. Some of the various statutes which authorize expropriation do not even mention the means of arriving at the amount of compensation, but the general principles can be found in the leading cases. One salient point emerges. The amount to be paid is the value to the owner, not the value to the taker. It is also the value to the owner and not simply the market value. The first thing an expropriated owner should do, if there is any sign of disagreement about price, is to hire a competent appraiser. I bring out these points in order to refute the argument to the effect that the expropriated owner is helpless. The appraiser can give the owner an honest and unbiased appraisal of the property. This enables the owner to decide whether or not he should accept the offer. Later, if necessary, that appraiser can give evidence before the court.
When a market value has been obtained the total claim in a federal expropriation should normally be computed by adding to the best market value the special value to the owner, the interest from the date the owner goes out of possession, the usual 10 per cent compulsory taking allowance-this is an important point because it shows a reasonable attitude-and, where only part of the property has been taken, a claim for severance. The losses involved for the owner are also taken into account. These include, for example, the cost to move to another location, the cost of dismantling and reassembling machinery and equipment, the loss because of increased costs in the new location, and the cost of dislocation while moving. Compensation for expropriation of course must not be exorbitant because it must be remembered that the Canadian taxpayers must be protected against paying an exorbitant price for property.
The previous speaker mentioned his experience in expropriation matters. I should like to mention mine. From personal knowledge I feel that the extensive expropriations carried out in the Welland area by the seaway authority have been carried out with efficiency and tact. No doubt there have been isolated cases of injustice, but the seaway authority working under the existing law in my opinion has interpreted it fairly and liberally. Out of

January 24, 1968
Expropriation Act
331 expropriations only one may have to be decided by the court.
However, there is one aspect of this type of expropriation which bothers me. I know this has caused hardship in my area. This hardship results from the policy of taking the appraised value at the time of the expropriation and then not making the payment until months later. When the expropriated owner finally receives his money, based on a market value of a year previously, he finds that in the interval, because of the hundreds of buyers who have been competing for adjacent property, prices of properties in which he might be interested are inflated. When the expropriated owner looks for another property he finds in some cases that he must accept a property of lesser value than the one he left. In my opinion this is an injustice. I believe the government should investigate this aspect and make recommendations in this regard immediately.
I believe the expropriating body should treat each case individually. There is a splendid example of this in the Welland area. A family with 12 children had their property expropriated. They were living in a very comfortable home. It was suitable for them. However, when they received the expropriation money it was not sufficient to buy a home which would suit their needs. This is where extra effort and compensation are required. The seaway authority went to great lengths in finding a comfortable home for these people.
I believe that all expropriating authorities should hire appraisers not only for their competence but also for their compassion and their understanding of human nature. We must never forget that we are taking someone's home which has intangible values, and an individual's dignity and self-respect must always be the prime concern of an expropriating authority. I also believe, as the previous speaker mentioned, that there should be a more expeditious and summary procedure for expropriation. The existing system involves arbitration which is cumbersome, costly and slow.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Furthermore, if the expropriating authority wishes to take possession of a property before a final award is adjudicated then that authority should pay a substantial percentage of the appraised value. This is done by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority which pays 80 per cent of the appraised value if a person wishes
[Mr. Tolmie.l
to leave his premises and property to locate elsewhere.
Very often the decision to expropriate is based upon preliminary surveys before the authority goes ahead with expropriation. If any damage is caused then the owner should be compensated. Provision should be included in our expropriation laws to grant assistance to certain categories of expropriated persons. For instance, an indemnity should be given to tenants with low incomes when the buildings they live in are expropriated, and the expropriating authority should also assist such families in their efforts to find other accommodation. Provisions should be explicitly placed in the expropriation laws to assist the resettlement of small tradespeople, craftsmen and small manufacturers. Again, there should be greater uniformity in the actual expropriation procedures and principles of compensation across Canada.
One proposal which seems to have merit is that relating to the drafting of a national code of expropriation which would set forth one uniform procedure. The anomalies and diversities resulting from too large a number of different laws dealing with expropriation would disappear if we had a uniform and equitable system of expropriation described clearly, simply and in a practical manner. Again I commend the hon. member for bringing this subject before the house. With the rapid and radical evolution of state ownership for public purposes the entire question of expropriation rights is in my opinion of transcendent importance.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to thank the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) for his courtesy in permitting me to precede him. I think he was ahead of me and had the right to speak first. I am very glad to be able to give enthusiastic support to the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and I commend him for bringing this urgent and important matter forward.
The present expropriation laws are a source of very serious injustice to quite a large number of people. We all know that expropriation is necessary because of expanding public and government needs. The public interest requires sometimes that private property rights give way. However, we have to recognize that there are highly emotional issues involved when people are asked, for the public benefit, to forgo property for which they may have worked and in which
January 24, 1968

they have deep feelings as well as their fortunes invested. The very fact that this parliament, among other legislative bodies, is constantly expanding the sphere in which expropriation takes place makes it all the more important that we should take our responsibility in seeing that there are not injustices in this field.
I want to commend to the attention of the house only two or three points in respect of the motion and the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. The first is the point he made that there should be some sort of a review by a tribunal and a public hearing before land is actually taken. When a public authority or department decides it requires lands it should inform the person whose property will be taken and he should have the right to a public hearing to ascertain whether that land or property is reasonably necessary for the purpose for which it is sought. A hearing of this sort would make a tremendous difference and a provision of this kind should be included in expropriation procedures.
The other main difficulty that arises relates to the question of compensation. This is a very difficult matter because we live in a complex age in which values are constantly shifting. This is not an easy matter to determine. The plain fact is that the balance is not even as between the state and the individual. The state or the public authority is armed with plenty of money, experience and expert advisers both in the legal and valuation fields. The individual often feels helpless because he has not the means to hire the necessary people if a balance of justice is to be found. Any procedures which are brought about must take account of that factor to make sure that the individual whose property is expropriated has the means of obtaining the proper expert advice in the valuation and legal fields. Without it he has no genuine bargaining power and cannot expect or hope to get complete justice. This is tremendously important because there are only a few individuals who have the means or the desire to litigate a matter in the exchequer court or other courts. I imagine that in nearly all cases there is a settlement long before they reach the courts, but a settlement will not be fair if the expropriating authority has all the power, knowledge and bargaining experience and the individual has none.
As the last speaker suggested, I believe that parliament should be foremost in setting up model legislation in this field. I suppose
Expropriation Act
that our Expropriation Act and the Exchequer Court Act as well, because it comes into this, are as antiquated pieces of legislation as will be found in Canada. The province of Ontario and other provinces have moved toward a more satisfactory expropriation procedure. Even these are not satisfactory. The law reform committee of the province of Ontario has recommended further important changes.
I promised my hon. friend to be brief and I will live up to that promise by saying, with all the force I can command, to the government or any of its representatives who are here and paying attention to this debate that what the hon. member for Red Deer has suggested should have very high priority in the legislative program of the government. It should have high priority because it is not good that this parliament should be responsible for the right to interfere with the property and the lives of individual Canadians when the remedies of those Canadians are, by reason of the deficiencies of the legislation passed by this parliament, of such a nature they do not provide them with a fair chance to meet the problems with which they are suddenly faced.
I do not think we can underestimate the importance of this matter because justice is involved as well as the deep feelings of a great number of our citizens. I am not always in agreement with the hon. member for Red Deer but in this instance I think his motion is timely and deserves the greatest support possible.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to commend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for bringing the subject of expropriation before the house. I thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his assistance in promoting changes in the acts relating to expropriation. I was very pleased to hear the fine address of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), although I must say it will be very difficult for me to match his eloquence. His remarks were very understandable and much to the point.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Since the hon. member for Red Deer told the house how he became so very interested in the matter of expropriation, perhaps I should say a word or two about how I became so interested. My interest is not of so great a vintage as his. As hon. members know, during this session I have addressed

January 24, 1968
Expropriation Act
the house on this subject on October 4 and November 21.
The reason I became interested in expropriation was that Canadian National Railways decided to build a spur line 12J miles in length through the Fort Saskatchewan settlement in my constituency to a government subsidized Imperial Oil fertilizer plant just south of the town of Redwater.
Canadian National Railways notified 23 farmers, without having given any previous warning, that a portion of the land on their farms had been expropriated and registered in the land titles office. This was before they received any notification that the spur line was to go through their farms. This is a most unfair and, to my mind, very wrong way to conduct this type of business. I fully realize that there are cases where summary action must be taken to expropriate land, but in this case I think it was done in a most unfair and undemocratic way.
This is not the only case in which I am interested. As I remarked on November 21 last, as reported at page 4541 of Hansard, a few days after I had made my first address I was telephoned by a lady in Toronto whose home, a solid brick house, had been expropriated by the city of Toronto. No settlement had been made and her house was just destroyed. This lady's land was not going to be put to any good use, but that is what happened. This matter has not been settled. The authorities eventually offered her $10,000 for property that could have been sold for somewhere around $30,000, and she had to go to court. I do not know what the result has been.
There are many other cases of this type of thing. I have been informed of similar cases in the city of Edmonton and in other parts of Canada where farmland has been most summarily expropriated without the people concerned being given any opportunity to make arrangements ahead of time. I believe this is not right and is not in accordance with our democratic principles in this country.
We have on the statute books of Canada the Bill of Rights which ensures certain civil rights to the people of this country. The Bill of Rights provides as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property,
[Mr. Fane.J
and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
I very freely admit that chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which covers the Expropriation Act, gives certain people the right to expropriate private property. However, I think that the owner of the property should have the right and the privilege not to have his land or property expropriated until he has refused to deal with the department that wants to take over certain of his property for improvement.
Section 3 of the Expropriation Act gives the minister of whatever department is concerned the power to enter into and upon any land to whomsoever belonging, survey and take levels of the same, and make such borings, or sink such trial pits as he deems necessary for any purpose relative to the public work. This section of the act goes on for another half page. I do not have the time at my disposal to read into the record all the things the section provides.
It is high time that we in this country who are so proud of our nation, who are so proud of our democratic principles and civil rights, made it mandatory that a person affected by the act be consulted and given an opportunity to make an agreement with those who want his land. This should be done before any expropriation is effected. After land is expropriated the only recourse that an owner has, if he is not satisfied with the settlement offered, is to appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
In almost every case brought before the Exchequer Court of Canada there is a minimum cost of about $20,000. Most people who have had their land expropriated do not have that kind of money to spend in an attempt to save property that is being taken away from them. I believe that of necessity these cases have to be heard in Ottawa, but it is a very expensive matter for people from my part of the country, for instance, to come here and have their case tried before the exchequer court. The $20,000 I mentioned does not cover the payment of the legal representatives of the people who are making the appeal.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think that in cases like this the onus of proving the right to expropriate the property should be on the federal government or the government concerned, and the costs of the appeal to the exchequer court should be borne by the federal government and not by the person whose property is expropriated. It should be absolutely mandatory that the civil
January 24, 1968

rights provided in the Bill of Rights and in most of the laws of our country be adhered to. A person should not have to suffer the expropriation of his property in a manner which, in the cases to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, practically amounts to theft because it was not necessary for Canadian National Railways to build a spur line from Fort Saskatchewan to Redwater through some of the best farming land in Canada and to cut up these farms in the way they did. The C.N.R. did not honour the commitments which were made on its behalf to build underpasses for the passage of stock when the line was built. Also the C.N.R. did not construct proper crossings over the railway line.
I believe that a time limit should be set when final settlement must take place. I know of cases where litigation has continued for years and no settlement has been reached. I definitely believe that the government should bear the cost of appeals to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
This is all I have to say on this subject. Again I wish to commend the hon. member for Red Deer for bringing this matter before the house and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to make my comments.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this resolution must be read carefully before going any further in the discussion.
Does the hon. member wish to put a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the hon. member talking it out?


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member like to repeat the remark he has just made? Perhaps he should withdraw it. I know some separatists who come from British Columbia.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: The
hon. member should withdraw that remark.
Expropriation Act


Auguste Choquette: I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is not one of them. She is too charming for that.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to amending the provisions of the Expropriation Act (R.S.C. 1952, c. 106) with a view to giving greater protection to citizens against arbitrary interference with their property rights by departments of the federal government, and to the establishment of more suitable procedures for the transfer of title and possesison of land expropriated under the authority of this Act.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the hon. member who sponsors this resolution certainly deserves credit for bringing to the attention of the house a problem which is real. It is true that sometimes, the way in which an expropriation, is conducted, the way the negotiations are opened and carried on shows a lack of administrative flexibility and complaints may be justified. I think that the hon. member had the praiseworthy intention of pointing out that problem to the house.
No doubt that the previous speakers mentioned earlier that the Expropriation Act is being reviewed and that there is every reason to expect that, in the near future, some important amendments will be submitted to the legislators. We should not therefore advocate the abolition of that essential system if public works or others are to be performed quickly and efficiently in our common interest.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? I could continue my remarks at the next session when we will reconsider that resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 25, 1968