1975-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The weekend resignation of Air Canada vice-president Yves Menard amid conflict of interest charges, the previous widespread knowledge of his holdings among Air Canada officials, the frequent reports of other conflicts of interest such as that involving Air Canada's Skifari package to Jasper and the telegram sent this morning to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) from 73 Air Canada revenue accounting employees demanding an investigation into Air Canada, as well as the previous but constant reports of managerial disarray, low employee morale, directors' meetings held in Florida, and the unique in-Canada deficit incurred by Air Canada this year, are reasons why the House has no alternative but to support this motion for the sake of our national airline's future. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the House direct the Acting Prime Minister to initiate an immediate independent inquiry into the entire operation of the Air Canada Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


SUGGESTED MEETING WITH WINNIPEG FINANCE BRANCH EMPLOYEES TO SETTLE DISPUTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter that has been raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and myself. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the Minister of Transport direct Air Canada to meet immediately with its finance branch employees in Winnipeg for the purpose of settling their dispute which has now gone on for many months.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I would like to raise a matter of urgent and public necessity. In view of the fact that communities in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, representing a population of some 200,000, have been without air service for over a year, the statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that adequate air transportation is essential to regional economic development and the denial by the Air Transport Committee on February 27 of the application of Transair, the designated regional air carrier to provide jet service without subsidy into the region and the intervention of Air Canada in the application to preserve its monopoly position, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the Minister of Transport take the necessary action to make it possible for Transair, as the designated regional carrier, to carry out its responsibilities west of Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which is put forward pursuant to Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent before it can be moved. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 4, 1975
Canadian Economy


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43.
In view of the recent commencement of the Berger Commission hearings in the Northwest Territories deliberating on northern development, and in view of the fact that the CBC continues to accept advertising from Imperial Oil Limited which deals with matters of controversy and opinion, in particular with the question of northern development, and in view of the fact that no opportunity has been provided by the CBC network or its affiliated stations for a reply to be given by public interest groups, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie:
That this matter be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and that the committee be requested to call Mr. Picard, President of CBC, to explain why BBG circular No. 51 has not been followed and why a right to fair answer has not been given in response to Imperial Oil commercials and further that the committee be requested to study orders for amendments to the broadcasting legislation to provide for fair answers and responses to commercial advertising dealing with public and controversial subjects.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which, since it is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO COUNTERACT CURRENT ECONOMIC SLUMP-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43	.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I wish to say that had it not been for the twelve noon deadline set by the House and the delay in issuing Statistics Canada figures, which confirm that the economy has slipped into a recession, I would have moved this motion under Standing Order 26 for debate.
However, in light of the GNP figures released today which show there has been a decline of 1.3 per cent in real growth in the fourth quarter of 1974 resulting in a standstill year in growth for Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova:
That this House instruct the federal government to exercise its mandate of responsible leadership promised to the Canadian people in the last election and that the Minister of Finance make a statement on motions on the status of Canada's economy and immediately initiate preparations for the introduction of a new budget which would more effectively counteract the current economic slump.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, which is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to the catastrophe which has developed in the grain industry caused by the current strikes at Vancouver. The situation is past the stage where it matters who is wrong and who is right. Canada's reputation as a reliable grain supplier has been severely damaged and the Canadian Wheat Board is contemplating either limiting sales or cancelling overseas delivery orders.
I believe the government House leader has a responsibility to the Canadian people to put forward emergency legislation placing the grain workers involved in the strikes at the West Coast back at work. I do not necessarily like this method of settling a labour dispute, but the situation at Vancouver is so serious that I believe this kind of action is warranted.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister having to do with the construction of a gas pipeline from the north. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether what I am quoting still represents government policy. On July 19, 1973 the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, now President of the Treasury Board, said in evidence in the appropriate House committee:
As Minister of Northern Development, I am responsible for granting a right of way in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Under the Territorial Lands Act I can hold hearings. And before I give to any group a right of way to build a pipeline, I shall have public hearings to assess the social and environmental impact on the construction of a pipeline in the north.
Is that still the policy of the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Acting Prime Minister reversed the position that he seemed to take in the House yesterday, that the government would not necessarily await, or that he would not commit the government to await, the outcome of the hearings now taking place before making a decision regarding the gas line?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our expectation that Mr. Justice Berger will be able to complete his hearings and
March 4, 1975

his report in plenty of time for the government to make a decision. The question that was put to me yesterday was: Could I give a categorical answer that under all circumstances we would await the report? In order, of course, to protect the position of the government, in circumstances that one cannot foresee at the present time, I had to say that I could not give a categorical answer; but we fully expect that Mr. Justice Berger will be able to complete all his hearings in time for us to take action.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ISSUANCE OF PIPELINE GUIDELINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Despite what the Acting Prime Minister says, it is clearly a change in position. I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister which arises out of the guidelines laid down on June 28, 1972 relating to pipelines and the National Energy Board. Again I quote:
Any certificate issued-
That is, by the National Energy Board.
-will be strictly conditioned in respect o( preservation of the ecology and environment, prevention of pollution, prevention of thermal and other erosion, freedom of navigation, and the protection of the rights of northern residents, according to standards issued by the Governor General in Council on the advice of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Have those standards been issued by the government, will they be issued in a public manner, and will there be an opportunity for this House to debate the adequacy of these standards before the National Energy Board makes a decision with regard to any application?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would say that the pipeline guidelines which have been laid down both by my department and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development several years in the past, copies of which have been made available to the House, would certainly govern any such decision of the National Energy Board. Actually, the board is an autonomous tribunal and will have to arrive at its own conclusions in this regard; but within its jurisdiction it would, of course, take account of government guidelines that are laid down.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Either the minister does not know what is going on in the government or his department, or he is trying to mislead the House. The guidelines of June 28, 1972 referred to any certificate of the National Energy Board being conditioned according to standards issued by the Governor General in Council on the advice of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am reading from the guidelines of the government.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH GOVERNMENT WOULD PROCEED PRIOR TO BERGER COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that he has changed his position on the question of the Berger
Oral Questions
inquiry, I wonder if he would tell the House whether there are any conditions under which the government would proceed with the pipeline before the receipt of the Berger inquiry report, and would he indicate generally what those conditions would be?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because such conditions are uncertain and unforeseeable that one has to retain a caveat.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In light of the answers given by the Acting Prime Minister to questions today, I should like to bring to his attention what he said in answer yesterday to a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The minister said in part:
No, Mr. Speaker, I could not give such a categorical assurance. It would depend a great deal on the nature of the report-
He did not say it would depend on the circumstances or on an emergency, but on the nature of the report to be presented by Mr. Justice Berger. In other words, if he did not like the report he would throw it in the ash can. That is really what he said yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my friend says "rubbish"; that is what the Prime Minister would likely say about the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order let me say that two questions were put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. After I had given that first answer the hon. member said:
-I am sure the Acting Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I was not asking whether the government would agree not to proceed if Mr. Justice Berger's report should be negative.
Following that I then gave this answer:
Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to give a categorical reply to this question. It is our hope that Mr. Justice Berger will bring down his report in time for it to be considered when we receive a recommendation from the National Energy Board.
That is what I said here today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North seeks the floor again on a question of privilege. The question of discrepancies that may exist in the interpretation of answers given from one day to another or by one minister or another certainly do not constitute a question of privilege. If the hon. member for Calgary North has some other question of privilege I would be glad to hear it. The opportunity for further questioning of the minister is always open if the minister has somehow left himself open to criticism that gives rise to a further question, but that is not justification for debate during the question period. Unless there is a fresh question of privilege, I would prefer to go on with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the event the government proceeds before the receipt of the report

Oral Questions
of the Berger Inquiry, on what agency does the government intend to rely for data respecting the preservation of the ecology and the environment, and for the prevention of pollution and other requirements upon which the issuing of a certificate allowing the pipeline are conditional?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is dealing with a very hypothetical situation which is unforeseeable. At the present time we are depending upon a report from Mr. Justice Berger, whom we appointed for this purpose. He is one of the more enlightened and credible people in this field and we are looking forward to receiving his report.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-BEQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROCEED UNTIL BERGER COMMISSION REPORT RECEIVED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Acting Prime Minister which arises from the statement in the House yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as recorded at page 3710 of Hansard, in which the minister said:
-any decision on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could go ahead only after appropriate regulatory proceedings, particularly after a study of land rights.
I should like to ask whether that represents the government's policy with reference to proceeding with the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the regulatory proceedings will of course be conducted by the National Energy Board and will deal with engineering feasibility studies, demand and supply of available gas and with the pipeline rates which may be charged but that the matter of land rights does not come within their jurisdiction and is the task that was assigned to the Berger Commission, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if that means that the government will not proceed with the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline until it has received the Berger report dealing with land rights.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when he answered a question for the hon. member for Calgary North, said:
Certainly our objective would be to have Mr. Justice Berger's report before us. The government cannot proceed unless there has been a positive decision by the National Energy Board on this particular subject.
This is the government's policy. This is why we have asked Mr. Justice Berger to conduct his inquiry. We have every expectation that he will complete his report in time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question is not whether the government has any expectation or any hope that it will receive the report by Mr. Justice Berger at a specific time, but is whether or not he can give the House

assurance that the pipeline will not be proceeded with until the report has been received and the minister keeps speaking of haste, I wish to ask the minister what haste there is in view of the fact that the government, when approving exports of gas, tells the Canadian people they have ample supplies.
I want to ask the minister whether the government is prepared to undertake a phasing down of our exports of gas and a stimulated program of exploration and development of gas in the settled areas of Canada so that we can have a great deal more time to study this matter which can have such disastrous consequences for the Canadian people.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, there may be differences of opinion as to which is the more urgent matter under these circumstances, but may I direct the attention of the hon. gentleman and the House to the terms of the Order in Council under which Mr. Justice Berger was appointed. One of the clauses states that his Excellency the Governor General in Council is further pleased to hereby direct Mr. Justice Berger to report to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with all reasonable despatch and file with the minister the papers and reference of the inquiry as soon as may be reasonable after the conclusion thereof.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister could answer a question with reference to the reason for the haste and why the government is retaining a caveat of it being urgent to proceed in certain circumstances without waiting for Mr. Justice Berger's report other than by merely quoting from an Order in Council to the effect that Mr. Justice Berger will report with all possible speed. It is anticipated he will report with all possible speed, but that does not answer the question concerning whether or not the government, which has committed itself to securing a report on the land claims of the native people, will wait until it receives that report before authorizing construction of the pipeline.


Mitchell William Sharp: 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and
Immigration.
No one will deny that the province of Quebec in particular is now suffering from a rampant unemployment rate which practically doubled these last few months. Several times the attention of the minister was drawn to delays in
March 4, 1975


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this point a few days ago and I indicated to him then that it would be very helpful not to generalize about these situations but to give me or the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as precise and specific information as is possible which will help us to do what the hon. member wants us to do, that is to pin down any exceptions to the general rule applied in the province of Quebec. I would be grateful if he could do this because, to my knowledge, I have not had that precise information.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-MANDATE GIVEN MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT BEFORE RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED FOR PIPELINE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and it has to do with a reply to a question that I had put to the previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development in committee on July 19 with regard to the inquiry in the right-of-way of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The minister said the following in reply:
... and I have a mandate from the cabinet to look at the social and environmental aspects before I grant a right-of-way.
My question is whether that mandate from the cabinet still applies to the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, yes or no?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister has the same responsibilities now as he had then and he has accepted them. He is a very responsible minister who is obviously doing an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question refers to the question which the Acting Prime Minister did not answer, and that is whether or not the mandate from cabinet still holds with regard to the study of the social and environmental aspects before granting the right-of-way for the pipeline.
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Those are precisely the terms of reference that have been given to Mr. Justice Berger on which he has been asked to hold inquiries and to report as quickly
as possible.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES PLACED BEFORE BERGER COMMISSION
Mitchell William Sharp: While I am on my feet perhaps I could be permitted to give an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Crowfoot yesterday regarding certain studies, whether they would be publicly available. The answer to that is, yes, the list of studies that have been put before the inquiry have been published. I have a copy here. Any of these may be requested and they are publicly available.


HARBOURS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, before putting my question may I say that we on this side of the House have the right to know who is the acting Minister of Labour in the House this afternoon and who is the acting Solicitor General in the House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has a question to ask of the Minister of Labour, he might put it in those terms and see who replies.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I was really more worried about the Solicitor General.


An hon. Member:: He is there in his place.


An hon. Member:: You need a rest.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question is for the Minister of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -whoever he may be.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Or wherever he may be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have given him and everybody else notice of it, Sir. My question is: what was the date on which the Minister of Transport or his predecessor in office first gave actual notice that he desired a police investigation to be carried out into the Hamilton harbour irregularities, and was this request given verbally or in writing. I ask that question in light of the three contradictory dates that are already on the public record.

March 4, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: This is not an easy question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The whole thing is a mess.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, since I am practising my French I will try to give the answer in French.

What I see in the heading is K1A 0N5 and at the end it is-

Letter typed, January 8, 1974.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Is it January 28, 1974?


Jean Marchand: No, January 8, 1974.


An hon. Member:: January 18?


Jean Marchand: I am sorry, I was wrong to lie to the hon. member but I could not resist it. The date is January 8, 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The answer, I take it, is 1973.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: January 8, 1973?


Some hon. Members:: 1873.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in terms as precise as I can use, it is January 8, 1973. Is that clear?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Could the minister inform us whether he made this request verbally or in writing and whether he made it to the RCMP or to his cabinet colleague, the Solicitor General.


An hon. Member:: The acting Solicitor General?


Jean Marchand: The letter I have here is written to the Commissioner, RCMP, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on this most serious matter which members on the government benches and their supporters in the background seem to be treating lightly. I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Transport, because he has given an indication to the House that he would table these letters, whether he would table them forthwith so that we might dispense with this hilarity with which the minister is treating this very serious subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I said the other day that because there were some names involved and the RCMP is making inquiries into this affair I would not table these letters because I think it would be unjust to the people named in them.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-MANNER IN WHICH INVESTIGATION STARTED
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the Minister of Transport please explain to the House how the circumstances in respect of these allegations, which aroused his suspicions about this matter, were presented to him? Did they come to him from police sources, from cabinet sources or outside sources? How did these matters come to his attention?


Jean Marchand: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have already answered that question, but I am ready to answer it again. I believe the Hamilton City Council withdrew its representative from the Hamilton Harbour Commission, which of course led the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to suspicions. I then asked them to make a complete inquiry into what had happened in the Hamilton case. That's about it, and one day we will have the play-by-play description.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Am I to gather from what the minister has said that the initiative in respect of the matter came to him from the RCMP in the first place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it came from the Hamilton city council-

It came from the Hamilton city council which noticed that something abnormal was going on.


J. Michael Forrestall: I'll get you in a minute.


Jean Marchand: Come and sit here and I will show you the letter.

After that revelation, I merely asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make an inquiry, through the Solicitor General of Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour for the benefit of the advice of the Chair on this question of privilege or point of order. I think it has been a long standing practice in this chamber that when a minister quotes from documents, particularly letters, he has some long standing obligation to table those letters for the edification of the members. I wonder if the minister might now respond to the traditions of the House and table the correspondence from which he is quoting.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that the minister did not quote from a document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What are you talking about; there was an invitation to go over and read it.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I sit right in front of the minister, and I did see him quoting directly from the
March 4, 1975

document which he held in his hand. He read from it, including reading the postal code. It seems to me that his memory could not be so good that he could remember the postal code without making a direct quotation from the letter.
Some hort. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Transport on the point of order.

Mb. Marchand (Langelier): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
To complete this information and clear up a misunderstanding, may I say that the hon. member is right when he complains of inconsistencies which in fact are not. I wrote about this, first to the RCMP Commissioner on January 8, and then to the Solicitor General of Canada on January 12, requesting a full investigation on what was going on in the Hamilton harbour. Therefore, the dates are January 8 and 12. I realize that one date may have been confused with the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a point of order before the House at the moment. The suggestion has been made that the minister is compelled to table the document which he has described. The basis of that is twofold: first, that the minister has quoted from the document and that by a long standing practice of this House-which is not in any way in question-a minister of the Crown who quotes from a document is obliged to table the document. The question is: has the minister, in answering a question in the House, quoted from a document by reading the address, including the postal code? Is that in fact a quotation from the document? I think hon. members would have to agree that that would be stretching that interpretation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Surely, a reasonable interpretation of the words "quotation from a document" must mean a quotation from the body of a document and not just, when answering the question to whom was it directed, saying that it was directed to the following, and reading the salutation in the letter.
The second ground advanced is that the minister has undertaken to table the letter. He indicated clearly in earlier questioning that there was a letter which he had written requesting this investigation and that he would be happy to proceed to table that document. That has given rise to legitimate points of order since that time on the ground that the minister, having said that he would table it, ought to do so. The response has been that he finds himself in a situation in which, before tabling the letter, he ought to take legal advice to see whether or not there would be persons offended by some breach of privilege because of their identity in that letter. That is the minister's response since undertaking to table the letter, and I am not aware of any steps this House can take at this time, short of a motion, to compel him to table that letter while he is taking that kind of legal advice.
Oral Questions


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-REASON FOR RCMP INVESTIGATION RATHER THAN PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Minister of Transport, and in keeping with his statement that he was advised by the city of Hamilton of abnormal goings on, I believe, subsequent to which he called for an RCMP inquiry, can the minister advise why he opted for the RCMP inquiry rather than to conduct a full scale inquiry into the activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, which apparently had been asked for since October of 1972? Why did he not take the advice of the city of Hamilton which was concerned about the abnormal goings on at that particular time?


Jean Marchand: Because the city of Hamilton was responsible for the operation of the commission.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-DATE ON WHICH RCMP FIRST INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister either conveniently does not understand my question or does not want to answer it. If I understand correctly, the minister said that the RCMP first became involved with an inquiry on or about January 8, 1973 regarding the Hamilton harbour activity. Is the minister now saying that this is the first time the RCMP was involved with the activities of the harbour, or can he advise when in fact the RCMP, prior to his advising them to make a full inquiry, became involved with some inquiry with respect to the Hamilton harbour, or was January 8 the first time?


Jean Marchand: I think that the question should be put to the city of Hamilton, not to myself.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know whether the minister can understand me or whether he is trying to evade my question. The question is simple. The minister indicated to the House that he advised the RCMP to initiate a full investigation. All I am asking is when in fact the RCMP did get involved in this matter. Was it prior to this time on a partial investigation, or was this the first time to the minister's knowledge, through his colleagues, that the RCMP became involved with investigating activities around the Hamilton harbour? Surely, that is within the minister's knowledge.


Jean Marchand: I really do not know why we have so many problems in this House.


An hon. Member:: Because of you.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We wouldn't if you would give a straight answer for a change.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member for Hamilton West knows the normal procedure very well, and he should know because he is a lawyer. I am even told that he is a good lawyer.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: I want you to think
that one over, Jean.

March 4, 1975
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: I think that I took the normal procedure as Minister of Transport knowing that something was going wrong in the Hamilton Harbour Commission. So, I wrote to the commissioner of the RCMP, but I sent this letter and another letter to the Solicitor General of Canada, who is responsible for the RCMP. I am not the one who can give orders to the RCMP. That is why we have two letters, one dated January 8, and the other, if I am not mistaken, January 12. Is that not right?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: So I followed the procedure. I informed the RCMP and I asked the Solicitor General, who has authority, to give orders to the RCMP to make the inquiry. That is all. There is nothing else.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this question: Was the RCMP investigating, in some way and under some authority, the Hamilton harbour activities prior to the time the minister wrote the letter calling for an inquiry. That is all I am asking. Does he know the answer.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer. I don't know.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REASON FOR NON-INTERVENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT IN BERGER COMMISSION HEARINGS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of persistent reports that some of Canada's foremost scientists with respect to the environment of the Mackenzie region have been silenced by a federal cabinet order saying that the Department of the Environment specialists are not to participate actively in the Berger hearings, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether he has made the investigation which he said yesterday he would make and is he now able to inform us whether that silencing order was given by the government, by the Minister of the Environment or by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister, indicate that all the environmental studies done, and a great number have been done on behalf of the government of Canada, have now been published or will be published, with one or two exceptions. These, for environmental reasons, are not being made public. The Department of the Environment, my own department and others have lent personnel to the Berger commission, that commission having sought those people, and in no sense has there been any withholding of information by a qualified person; neither has information contained in studies done on behalf of the government been withheld from the Berger commission.

I wonder if, while I am on my feet, I might deal with a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the minister goes on in another direction, may I ask whether the government will see to it that the Department of the Environment does its job and actually intervenes before the Berger commission, in order to present the environmental aspects of this matter.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has been laying all environmental information before the Berger commission and has made available the services of qualified advisers. I do not think the government should be in the position of trying to direct the Berger commission in any particular way. Our purpose in appointing Mr. Justice Berger and for instituting hearings under the National Energy Board was to enable the inquiry boards to make a full judgment on the qualified information and advice which may be presented to them. I do not think that I, as the minister, or anybody else should try to direct either inquiry.
[Later.)
Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question of privilege? A little earlier in the question period the Leader of the Opposition quoted from a document, the 1972 pipeline guidelines. He quoted a specific passage which he said was part of these guidelines to do with standards to be issued for the National Energy Board. The passage which he quoted was from a 1970 press release, which is an appendix to that particular set of guidelines. The 1972 guidelines superseded that press release, superseded those guidelines and, indeed, implemented the standards which exist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the minister is trying to do. I was quoting from the 1972 guidelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the 1970 press release, which is an appendix to the 1972 guidelines.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the truth is that the minister does not know what is in those guidelines. I and the Canadian people want to know what the standards are and when the government will produce them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No matter whether it is clear as to which document was quoted, I imagine it is perfectly clear that the point has nothing to do with a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to mislead us again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You had better smarten up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 4, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I still would like an answer to my question. It was straightforward. Were officials of the Department of the Environment prevented from intervening before the Berger commission and answering questions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such prevention.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As companies involved in the Hamilton harbour incident were also involved in other dredging contracts, particularly in Quebec, why did it take the RCMP almost two years to extend their investigation into dredging contracts involving those companies operating outside Hamilton?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP started their investigation in Hamilton.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When?


William Warren Allmand: The date has been given. I forget the exact date. It followed the request of the Minister of Transport. This became a criminal investigation because there was suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. This investigation was proved to be the right one because, subsequently, three people were found guilty and two more trials are pending.
Once the RCMP investigated that case, they found that it led to other evidence relating to other contracts; they investigated those contracts as well, and that evidence led to further evidence. As they continued investigating, more evidence became available, and this has led them to the wider type of investigation now under way.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the evidence showed that there was ground for suspicion in other areas, why was it necessary for the Minister of Transport to request the RCMP to investigate in lie d'Orleans.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, investigations began at Hamilton. Once the RCMP started investigating the case in Hamilton, evidence came to light which led them to the Quebec city incident. As I said, evidence led them to believe that there could be some kind of impropriety in other parts of the country as well, and they are presently checking this out.


INVESTIGATION INTO ILE D'ORLEANS DREDGING CONTRACT-RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING INVESTIGATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Did the RCMP extend the investigation into the lie d'Orleans contract on
Oral Questions
their own initiative, or were they requested so to do by the Minister of Transport?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, they were requested by the Minister of Transport to begin investigations in Hamilton. Once the RCMP found there was evidence which led them to Quebec city, they reported to the Minister of Transport, and he told them to go full speed ahead in Quebec city as well.
* *


PUBLIC SERVICE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board, who had left the chamber but has now returned. As the minister indicated two or three times since last Thursday, both inside and outside the House, that he had extended invitations to the Public Service Alliance and the General Labour and Trades Group to return to the bargaining table, and as the President of the Public Service Alliance this morning sharply denied ever receiving an offer or invitation to return to the bargaining table, may I ask the minister how his offer or invitation was extended and on what basis he feels now that talks might prove useful and productive. Has the government now reconciled its position vis-a-vis compatibility of outside trades with that position being held by the Public Service Alliance?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, following Mr. O'Connor's departure, my conciliators asked to meet with the bargaining agents of the alliance. They met once. They proposed the bargaining agents meet daily, but the alliance stated it was unwilling to meet every day. My negotiators indicated their willingness to meet any day with the bargaining agents.
We have not heard from them since. However, to date, we have proposed to meet every day with its agents. As I explained on a number of occasions in the House, I feel that if we want to compare maintenance employees in the private sector with those in the federal government, we will eventually reach an agreement. However, if we compare our maintenance employees with workers on construction sites, the difference may be quite extensive. And yet, I must advise the House that as far as annual income is concerned, maintenance employees with the federal government are averaging more than employees on construction sites.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do I understand from the President of the Treasury Board he has now instructed Treasury Board negotiators to adopt that particular attitude with regard to any further talks between Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance in connection with the present strike?

Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, our attitude has not changed; we are still willing to find a reasonable solution to the conflict.


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO ENSURE EXPORT MOVEMENT IN VIEW OF PUBLIC SERVICE STRIKE
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On Wednesday, February 26, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Marquette, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said in connection with the tie-up of grain at the west coast that a number of plans are being looked at, both in connection with the immediate period and also in connection with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House what these plans are and whether they have been discussed in cabinet so that there may be an end to the complete tie-up of grain facilities at the port of Vancouver?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the government is very, very concerned about the tie-up. We have been having discussions with respect to the negotiations that Treasury Board is conducting and we have been looking at the position of private groups that are also being struck. These discussions are going on. There is no simple answer. We do not think it would be advisable at this time to have parliament enact legislation because we believe in the collective bargaining process and would like it to work if it can.


Jack Burnett Murta: I would just tell the Acting Prime Minister that I basically agree with his sentiments. However, does he not feel at this time that the situation is so serious in the whole grain movement that something has to be done now rather than let the situation continue for what could be a fairly lengthy period of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for expressing his concern. It is one that we share.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
As a result of disclosures made by former CIA agent Philip Agee in his book Inside the CIA, has the minister received representations from the Police Reform Commission requesting that CIA activities be banned in Canada and that its agents be deported until the United States senatorial commission has completed its inquiry?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the CIA does not operate in Canada. The book in question has been read by members of the RCMP and my staff. It contains many allegations that are not correct.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
As the CIA is being accused of spying and activism in South America, would the minister be willing to recommand an inquiry to determine whether it is carrying out similar activities in Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are continually on guard against any kind of espionage work in Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: My question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the uncertain conditions in former Portuguese African colonies with refugee conditions developing and the resulting exodus of people, many of them with relatives in Canada, as well as the fact that Portugal faces severe economic and political problems, and absorbing these large numbers of people will only make them worse, have the minister and his department taken any steps towards accepting numbers of these refugees into Canada to meet this potential and developing emergency?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have had no formal information or representations on this matter, but being aware of the general situation and following the hon. member's information as presented in his question, I will certainly look into it. If there are circumstances meriting refugee or oppressed minority consideration, certainly we will be very glad to give every possible consideration to it.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour on an urgent and pressing matter. In view of the impasse on the west coast, and it is now accepted as an impasse by both sides in the dispute, will the acting minister immediately contact both sides and ask if they are willing to accept a conciliator or arbitrator at this particular time?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter this morning with the deputy minister of labour. Within the Department of Labour, close consideration is now being given to the question and a decision will be taken in the next few hours.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the urgency of the situation and the willingness to negotiate which I think has been evident on the west coast for the past few hours, and in view of the tremendous importance of this whole question of moving food, will the minister in proposing and discussing with the partners to this quarrel push the idea of a western conciliator who already knows the problem rather than an eastern conciliator who will take two or three months to find out about it?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it would be better for the parties themselves to put forward their viewpoints rather than have the hon. member do it for them in the House. If the view expressed by the hon. member is really in accordance with the parties' intentions, I assume it would be much more easy to intervene.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact the minister is reported to have cancelled a radio broadcast 45 minutes before it was scheduled to take p*ace in which he was reported to be planning to announce a $50 million plus land claims settlement to Yukon Indians and in view of the fact that land claims negotiations are, by agreement, supposed to be secret, can the minister advise the House why he planned to make the announcement, why he cancelled it at the last minute and whether cancellation of the broadcast will, in fact, mean cancellation of the terms of the proposed settlement?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: We have been engaged in discussions with the Council of Yukon Indians concerning this proposal since last November. It was our understanding that they were in agreement with the steps we were taking. When I arrived in Whitehorse on Friday, or on Saturday morning, they expressed some concern. After considerable discussion we agreed that the particular proposal would not be put over Anik which is what the hon. member is referring to. However, we did put it forward in the form of a working paper to be presented over television in Whitehorse and over radio throughout the Yukon yesterday afternoon.
Oral Questions


John Robert Holmes: Is the minister aware that one of the chief complaints registered by the native people in their dealings with the federal government concerns a consistent lack of consultation and co-operation? Can he advise the House of the reasons for the confusion in this instance?


J. Judd Buchanan: I am aware that this is a complaint which is frequently made. In this case, a series of meetings had been held and we felt there had been a meeting of minds. The meeting on Saturday morning showed this was not the case. That was the reason for the change.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a serious point of order. Some of us on this side of the House have been placed at a distinct disadvantage through not knowing at the beginning of the question period, especially when so many ministers of the Crown are away for various reasons, whether there is an acting minister in the House and, if so, who that acting minister is. Is there any way in which, through your good offices, we could be apprized in advance of the question period, as to the identity of the acting ministers for the day?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not necessarily something which the Chair could better facilitate than a co-operative discussion between the House leaders who might very well be able to arrange for the passage of this information on a daily basis.


BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to the attention of the House the importance of this day, March 4. It was on this day that a most distinguished Canadian was born, one who has brought great distinction to the City of Sudbury, to northern Ontario, to Canada and to this House, namely yourself, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I know that all members of the House will wish to join me in extending good wishes to you for a most happy birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am most grateful. That was not only a welcome intervention but a welcome change of pace.
3760
Broadcasting



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1975

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the Broadcasting Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce for consideration by hon. members a bill establishing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The regulation of communications at the federal level is carried out, at the present time, by two separate agencies: The Canadian Radio-Television Commission as regards Broadcasting including cable Television and the Telecommunication Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission as regards telephone and telegraph carriers. Hon. members of this House probably know that the principal telephone and telegraph carriers now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and, consequently, of the CTC, are: Bell Canada, which operates its telephone network in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and in parts of the Northwest Territories. The corporation has, moreover, been declared to be a "work for the general advantage of Canada", as they say in proper legal jargon.
British Columbia Telephone Limited which also has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and, finally, CN-CP Telecommunications, which operate a public telegraph network throughout Canada and which, in competition with other telephone companies, offer various types of private services. They have also installed a microwave long distance network parallel to the network of the Trans-Canada Telephone System.
Hon. members are also aware that since 1968 the Canadian Radio-television Commission has been responsible for issuing the licences for the operation of Broadcasting stations, whether they are privately owned or are part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks. The commission, consisting of five full time members and ten part time members, is more particularly responsible for the implementation of the broadcasting policy for Canada enunciated in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. It has to take the necessary steps to ensure that broadcasting should serve to safe-guarding and enriching Canadian culture in all its aspects. Another objective of the commission is to provide, by means of broadcasting, transmitting and receiving stations, high quality service in both official languages. This government is determined to uphold the broadcasting policy approved by Parliament in 1968 and will continue to support all the efforts of the regulatory agency and others concerned with the implementation of that policy.
The essential purpose of this bill is to entrust the regulation of all federally-regulated telecommunications to a

single agency to be known in future as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission- thus retaining the acronym CRTC-to emphasize the significance which this government sees in both aspects of telecommunications, namely broadcasting an transmission. The integration of the different modes of telecommunication, whether they are telephone, broadcasting, coaxial cable or microwave, becomes more and more complete every day. The advent of cable television, with its still undeveloped two-way potential, has made it imperative to entrust the different aspects of telecommunications to a single regulatory agency in order to ensure the harmonious development of these new techniques, in a manner compatible with the best interests of Canadian citizens.
This bill is but the first step towards the modernization of the federal statutes relating to telecommunications. In the near future, the government intends to submit to Parliament the second phase of this Legislative project. This will entail an in-depth revision of the provisions of the Railway Act applying to telephone and telegraph, of the Telegraphs Act, of the Radio Act, and of the Broadcasting Act. The Acts incorporating the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, and Telesat Act will also be amended.
Before introducing this second bill to Parliament, the government wishes to ascertain the views of the provincial Governments on the most effective methods of regulating telecommunications. By so doing, we hope, Mr. Speaker, to obtain a better understanding of the various factors and elements to be taken into account in drafting our second stage of legislation. The positions of the federal government have already been published in a green paper intitled "Proposals for a Telecommunications Policy for Canada", which was tabled in the House of Commons in April 1973. This exchange of views with the provinces becomes all the more necessary in the light of the present division of responsibilities in the field of telecommunications; Parliament has exclusive legislative authority over radiocommunications, including broadcasting which television in turn includes cable, while the provincial legislatures control local telephone or telegraph indertak-ings, the great majority of which have not been declared to be "works" for the general advantage of Canada. It is therefore desirable, perhaps even essential, to achieve as soon as possible a better coordination of governmental efforts in this regard and of the initiatives of the several regulatory agencies in order to provide all Canadians in all parts of the country with the telecommunications and broadcasting services they have a right to expect.
In November 1973, a conference of ministers responsible for communications was held in Ottawa. At that time, I informed the provincial ministers of our intention to introduce the present bill merging the two federal agencies directly responsible for regulating telecommunications, without in any way changing existing powers over the undertakings respectively subject to their authority. The commission will continue, until after the enactment of the second legislative measure, to exercise the present powers of the CRTC over broadcasting undertakings. The new commission will also apply the provisions of the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act to the telephone and telegraph companies. With regard to regula-
March 4, 1975

tory principles and procedures, this merger will obviously lead to better coordination and greater unity of thought.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will consist of a maximum of nine full time members and ten part time members. The existing CRTC comprises five full time members and ten part time members. The increased responsibilities of the new commission account for the proposed appointment of four additional full time members to help the commission in adequately fulfilling its mandate. When the act is put into force, all the members of the CRTC will become members of the new commission until their respective terms of office expire.
The bill also provides for the transfer to the new commission, when the act is put into force, of matters that are presently dealt with by the CRTC, with the exception of those matters that may already be the subject of a hearing or of an inquiry at that time which will be decided by the present commission and the CTC. The governor in council will nonetheless be authorized to depart from this rule if it is unrealistic to defer unduly the assumption by the commission of certain matters that may be the subject of a hearing or of an inquiry. In these cases, steps will be taken to protect the rights of the parties concerned and of the general public.
This act will be put into force by proclamation. The delay between the enactment of this legislation and its implementation will enable the government to set up the administrative structures required to ensure the smooth running of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This act will permit better coordination of telecommunications regulatory policy at the federal level. This rearrangement of administrative structures, as I have already mentioned, is only the first manifestation of our desire to integrate the various components of telecommunication in the best interests of all Canadians. The government is convinced that it will enable the members of the new commission to work in a more adequate and sustained way toward the supervision of the national broadcasting and telecommunication networks.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the legislation before the House, in so far as it constitutes an attempt to consolidate under the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), a single federal regulatory agency covering the whole field of telecommunications and the exercise of authority over both the CBC and the operations of the federally-regulated telecommunications carriers, is correct. A detailed analysis of the legislation exposes weaknesses and anomalies which, however, it would be more appropriate to discuss in committee. We intend to do this at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner, and we hope we will be able to put forth constructive amendments for the minister's consideration and, I trust, acceptance and implementation.
I propose, today, to discuss in a more general way my party's view of Canadian communications policy generally, to indicate the particular areas where wrong policy directions have in our view been taken, and to direct the
Broadcasting
attention of the minister and the House to policy failures which, if allowed to continue uncorrected, will create very serious problems for Canadians generally. Perhaps the most serious general criticism that can be levelled at this government is its apparent unwillingness and failure to enter into meaningful negotiations with its provincial counterparts in connection with the jurisdictional jungle that over the years has developed in relation to communications matters.
Our party believes that the time has long since passed when a national communications policy should be set in place. We believe that such a national communications policy should have certain specific objectives, including that of protecting and promoting the political, social and economic fibre of Canada. It should contribute to the flow and exchange of regional and cultural information and the development of national unity. It should reflect Canadian identity and, as well, the diversity of Canadian culture and social values. And, generally, it should facilitate the orderly development of telecommunications in Canada, for Canadians, and the provision of efficient and economical systems and services to all Canadians at rates which are just and reasonable.
Clearly, a first and fundamental step in putting in place such a policy would be to resolve with the provinces the competing and conflicting jurisdictional claims between broadcasters, cable operators, common carriers and governments themselves. We should recognize, without equivocation, that the constitutional straitjacket imposed on telecommunications at the time of confederation, rigidly and jealously exercised by successive federal governments, is no longer an appropriate answer in this era of technological change. Instead, the federal government should define the national interest in telecommunications with the sense of urgency, imagination and initiative which the matter deserves.
With this objective in mind, we would propose that certain specific steps be taken, namely, consolidating under the Minister of Communications the present eight different federal statutes relating to telecommunications; the establishment of one federal authority to regulate standards for systems and equipment; federal recognition that the provinces should participate in the regulation of telecommunications through a Canadian communications commission composed of federal and provincial nominees to replace and carry out the duties proposed to be carried out by the commission established by the legislation before us, and with corresponding technical subcommittees for the industrial components falling under its jurisdiction. It would, and should be, a cornerstone of federal communications policy that the federal government recognize the paramountcy of provincial communications systems in place and put an end to the jurisdictional wrangling in existence or in process which at this point in time characterizes the communications mess presently gripping our country.
In order to stimulate research, long-range and coordinated planning and to publicly review the work and activities of the Canadian communications commission, we believe the government should establish a communications council with a permanent secretariat founded by, but
28996 - 3314

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
independent of, the government with a mandate to report at least once a year to the people of Canada on the state and scope of telecommunications in this country.
That, very briefly, puts before the House a communications policy in specific terms as an alternative to the present chaotic situation characterized by green papers, white papers and piecemeal legislation and jurisdictional struggles which can only further exacerbate the sense of regional alienation and chronic confrontation which seems to characterize federal-provincial relations under this government.
The specific, fundamental, unanswered question in communications policy in this country is simply this: what role does the federal government see provincial governments playing in the communications field?
Has the province of Saskatchewan negotiated a special arrangement for the operation of cable television within its borders? If so, what are the terms of the arrangement, and are similar arrangements being negotiated with other provinces which may desire them? There is little to be lost, and perhaps everything to be gained, in the development of a broadcasting and, in particular, cable regulatory framework in which provinces have a legitimate role. The participation of provincial Crown corporations or agents in the field of broadcasting and cable origination, transmission of programs and programming within over-all guidelines established by the federal government, could be of great advantage. Such a policy approach permits provinces to participate in the control of what to many is an important or vital aspect of their culture and way of life.
This concern by provincial governments across the country from the viewpoint of mass media represents a legitimate concern for responsible diversity. As with other mass media ownership, it would be perhaps unwise to concentrate ownership or program control in any one set of hands. Nevertheless, within an appropriate framework established in the interests of each and all, provincial partnership and participation in this field should be welcome.
There can be little doubt, either, that it would be desirable to openly modify present government policy and permit, if not encourage, educational institutions and agents of Her Majesty in right of any province, not excluding municipal or other public bodies, to participate appropriately in broadcasting and programming endeavours. This should be within co-ordinating federal regulations establishing minimum requirements, providing also that the broadcast licensee shall be free of direct political control.
The bill we have before us may appear routine and purely functional, but I believe that a certain degree of policy formulation lies beneath the surface. The Minister of Communications has attempted in the past to pass off the intent of the bill and to allay the fears of provincial ministers of communications. He portrays it as the merging of two regulating bodies, an internal reshuffle of regulatory agencies of the federal government that brings no change whatsoever to the respective authorities nor to the administrative dispositions between the provinces and the federal government as regards the regulation of telecommunications. Yet the minister knows that this is not altogether an accurate portrayal of the facts.

The provincial ministers have, in fact, been making representations to the federal Minister of Communications seeking some kind of resolution to the long-standing struggle over communications jurisdiction. The bill before us, I point out, is another step toward solidifying the federal government's position vis-a-vis the provinces without their consent or consultation. The provincial ministers' conference in Quebec City in 1972 resulted in the federal government being accused of duplicating provincial telecommunications systems in licensing the CN-CP telecommunications' network. The provinces' communications ministers' conference in 1973 pleaded with Ottawa to stay out of provincial areas of jurisdiction. The provinces reacted to the federal green paper on communications released in 1974 by reiterating that in their view the regulation of telephone rates was a matter solely within provincial jurisdiction.
The minister admits openly that the number of court proceedings is increasing in which federal-provincial communications jurisdiction is the basic issue. Amid this turmoil, the minister simply hides behind that old line of defence, the constitution. "Conflicts of jurisdiction are not the business of federal-provincial ministers' conferences. That comes under the jurisdiction of a constitutional conference or the courts"-that is what the minister said. Why then, I might ask, would the minister choose to buttress his stand against the provinces by unilaterally increasing the ambit of the CRTC while there are existing provincial administrations for dealing with some of the problems in which the federal government has become involved? Why will the minister not consent to further federal-provincial conferences on the matter?
Federal and provincial interests in telecommunications can, and should be, complementary rather than conflicting, and afford ample opportunity for constructive cooperation by all levels of government in Canada. Given the great ambiguity in the determination of jurisdiction for communications and cable TV, it is entirely reasonable for provinces to seek to play an effective role in this sector. The provinces have very real interests and concerns relating to their exclusive powers. Given the present rigidity of the government, and given also the June 4, 1970, government directive to the CRTC to exclude provinces or their agents, it is not surprising that a federal-provincial confrontation is shaping up. Flexibility and reasonableness, combined with a willingness to participate in meaningful federal-provincial discussions, are required.
For the future, as in the present, the importance of telecommunications to the provinces and the federal government requires co-operation and good will. Not satisfactory are back-door responses in contradiction to the federal government's own directive, for example the CRTC allowing the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund, a provincial Crown agent, to become a major shareholder in a cable TV company. Provincial participation is perhaps desirable, but the federal government should admit it for what it is.
The future course of this vital telecommunications and communications sector should be founded on the decisions of reasonable men working together, whether they be at the federal or provincial level, and the conclusions and
March 4, 1975

agreements arrived at by this process should be openly and publicly implemented.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the advent in recent years of satellites and computers has led to a revolution in the whole field of communications. That revolution has had very serious effects in this country, to a large extent because of the divided jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. This has made it increasingly difficult to know precisely who has not only the right but the responsibility for determining what communications policy will be and what charges we will make for different methods of communication.
Similarly, the advent of cable television has created a great deal of contention and division of opinion between the federal government, which claims to have the right to regulate radio and television, and the provinces which, because of their concern with educational matters, feel they must have a great deal of say-not the whole say- about the form of transmission of information which can, and probably will be-if it is not already-one of the most important methods of getting education to the people in all age groups. For this reason there is now, and has been for some time-as the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) has already said-a great deal of conflict between the provinces and the federal government about where, in fact, rests the right to regulate. My colleague the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) will deal with that question.
I want to deal with one of the main tasks which, if I understood the minister correctly, has been the responsibility of the Canadian Transport Commission-and, much earlier, the responsibility of the Board of Transport Commissioners-but which will, if we pass this measure, become the responsibility of the CRTC in its new form. To the extent that the responsibility for setting telephone rates is taken from the present Canadian Transport Commission and given to the CRTC, we in this party will support that proposal because the fact is-and I want to take a few minutes to place some examples on the record- that the record of the CTC has been one of complete failure. It has never, so far as I can find out, turned down a single application made to it by Bell Canada for permission to increase rates. On the other hand, the CRTC has been an active, aggressive, socially conscious organization which has in the field, so far as it has responsibility, done a good deal of research into the basic problems, has consulted with the public, has engaged in dialogue with the public and with interested organizations and has tried to chart a policy which would be of benefit to the people as a whole. This does not mean I agree with every decision made by the CRTC, but at least it has seemed to take its responsibility seriously. To that extent we can support the change the minister is proposing.
Having said that, I want to remind the minister of a judgment of Mr. Justice William Douglas of the United States Supreme Court, as set out in his autobiography, in which he discusses his experience as chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission during the middle thirties. He makes the suggestion that no regulatory agency should be permitted to exist for more
Broadcasting
than ten years, because after ten years the agency which has been established to regulate and monitor the companies and corporations in the field for which it has been given responsibility inevitably finds that it becomes the servant of those companies and corporations rather than the regulatory agency or the master which tells them what to do. I think this happens almost inevitably in respect of every regulatory agency which has been established not only in Canada but in every other country.
I wish to take a few moments to place on the record what has happened in respect of the supposed regulation of telephone rates in the area in which the federal government has responsibility-Ontario and Quebec. If one examines the record of the Canadian Transport Commission, one finds that in every case over the years in which Bell Canada has asked for a rate increase, that rate increase has been granted. In every case where Bell Canada received an increase and the board took the time and trouble not merely to grant the increase but to indicate what it believed would be a fair rate of return for Bell Canada, we find that when the company came back one year, two years or three years later to ask for another increase, in fact the rate of return the company had received was not the rate of return the regulatory agency had said it should have, but was more than that. But despite that, the principle laid down by the regulatory agency was overlooked by the agency and a further increase was granted.
If one looks at the record from 1958 to the middle 1960s, one sees that Bell Canada consistently exceeded the level of earnings established by the old Board of Transport Commissioners. The excess profits of Bell Canada, which I suggest were illegal and in violation of the board's own rulings, amounted to about $37 million. In 1964 the board conducted a further investigation of the pricing procedures of Bell Canada, but rather than directing its attention to the excessive profit level, the board concerned itself merely with the application by Bell to change its permissible level of profits in order to justify a rate increase.
In 1966 the board raised the permissible level of Bell Canada's earnings to fall within the range of between 6.2 per cent and 6.6 per cent of the total average capitalization. A year later Bell came back for another increase. It was then found that the rate of return had not remained in the 6.2 per cent to 6.6 per cent range which the board had authorized, but in fact had reached 6.8 per cent. In 1968 it was up to 6.9 per cent. The board, however, gave Bell another increase. Having been encouraged by the CTC's lack of resolve in the face of pressure, Bell Canada came back in 1969 to ask for a new profit level of 8 per cent to 9 per cent return on total capital. On that occasion the board avoided its responsibility and refused to fix any permissible level. The result was that Bell increased its net earnings by almost $12 Vi million in 1969 over 1968. By this time it had been able to earn a return on equity of 7.3 per cent.
The 1969 judgment was delivered in September, and in June of 1970 Bell Canada was back with a further application to the CTC for a revised rate structure designed to increase its revenue by $30 million. The company obtained another increase. In 1971 Bell Canada was back again, despite the increase in 1970. This time it wished an

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
increase that would permit it to have a return of not less than 8.2 per cent, ranging up to 9 per cent, on capital. The CTC disagreed and limited the additional revenue to $47.2 million, which it estimated would give a return on total average capital of 7.8 per cent and 9.5 per cent on common equity. That was in 1971. In 1972 Bell Canada was back again asking for a very sharp increase. The CTC agreed to that. They never once turned down an application for a rate increase. They never once said to Bell Telephone, "We gave you an increase; you exceeded the profitability level which we set and we are not going to give you another increase." They never once took the step which United States regulatory agencies have taken in the past and said, in effect, "You have already exceeded the profitability level for which you asked and which we allowed, so for the month of September", or whatever the month may be, "you should not charge your customers anything; you should give them a free month because you have already exceeded the rate which we allowed".
But, of course, the Canadian regulatory agency could not do that: that would be too much in the interest of the consumer, and the last person the CTC thinks about is the Canadian consumer.
So Bell Canada asked for an increase in 1972. Unfortunately for them, in 1972 this country had a minority government. The government of the day knew that if it permitted an increase in rates to Bell Canada, it-the government-might not survive. So for the first and only time the government suspended the rate increase which had been asked for by Bell Canada and approved by CTC. The government said it was suspending a telephone rate increase for Bell Canada partly to ensure that at least basic communications services were available to all Canadians, wherever they lived, at just and reasonable rates. That was in a period when we had a minority government, in 1973. But by 1974 the election was over, we no longer had a minority government and the government did not have to worry about it. Therefore, the government permitted an increase in the way it had always permitted increases in the past, despite the recommendations of a number of organizations and with no intervention from the regulatory agency.
Recommendations were made to the minister by a number of organizations which were concerned about the effect of the increases on consumers. I have before me some of the submissions which were made to the minister. An organization called Action Bell Canada made a submission to the minister in which they pointed out the contradictions and inadequacies in the CTC decision. I want to put on record some of the arguments which they put forward-arguments, incidentally, which were completely ignored and never reviewed by the government when it permitted Bell Canada the increase for which it had asked. Action Bell Canada said, among other things:
The CTC has given Bell Canada millions of dollars by almost totally accepting Bell's arguments (or amended Application B. This has been done without Bell Canada even presenting its total profit picture to the commission or the CTC really knowing exactly how much it is giving away. Indeed, Bell Canada's chairman indicated in the hearing that this company may be back shortly for more money from the CTC.

I am reasonably certain that before 1975 is over, Bell Canada will be back. After all, why should they miss this year when they have not missed a year in the last ten? Action Bell Canada said, further:
The amended Application B decision continually shows CTC's disenchantment with the token public participation methods it grudgingly adopted. CTC hits out at those new intervenors who misunderstand CTC regulation protocol and who the CTC labels as social impact intervenors. Instead of direct input from consumer groups in reforming its procedures, the CTC opts for an independent legal counsel to represent the public interest. The commission also proposes that Bell Canada's internal customer studies underway, along with future government studies on the social responsiveness of telephone service, will go a long way towards eliminating frustrations among Bell customers.
One of the things which is obvious to anyone who makes the most cursory examination of Bell's applications and interventions is that consumers and their organizations are virtually powerless to make a real presentation because Bell's organization is so large and its system so complicated that the costs of really studying it are so great that none of the organizations which have shown interest are able financially, or in terms of personnel, to do the job required. The fact is that in the most recent application which was approved, the Consumers' Association of Canada refused to make a real submission, not because they did not want to, not because they did not think that the rate increase being asked for by Bell was unjustified but simply because they did not have the money required. They calculated that it would cost at least $20,000 just to get a lawyer to represent them. What it would have cost to get engineering and accounting technical advice which they would have required, I certainly do not know, but we are probably talking in terms of $100,000 or more. The Consumers' Association of Canada simply did not have that kind of money.
The CTC said, "Because organizations cannot come forward with real technical briefs, because they just argue on the basis of social impact, and so on, we are not really very interested in their submissions because they have nothing really worth-while to contribute to the hearings". Instead of the CTC doing the job itself, or ensuring that the government would supply the technical know-how to interested organizations, the CTC said, in effect, that they were not able to do the job themselves and they did not really want to hear from these organizations in the future. Having said that, the CTC itself got into social impact rulings. Action Bell Canada said, further:
It would allow 10 cent pay-phones at sidewalk locations but not at citizen group locations and exemptions to directory assistance charges to those 65 and over only if they come to Bell and make such a request. The commission can accept Bell arguments for reduced rates for large customers having the Telpak service while not accepting intervenors' requests for the abolition of security deposits that mainly affect the poor.
It is a long-standing complaint on the part of subscribers in Ontario and Quebec that they are required to put down a security deposit-I cannot at the moment remember whether it is $25 or $35-but it is money which stays with Bell Canada and which they use interest-free for their own purposes. Action Bell Canada continues:
CTC sees nothing wrong with semi-automatic price increases through upgroupings in the larger centres of Toronto and Montreal this year at an additional 60 cents a month per subscriber, yet it is willing to take a temporary stand on the abolition of the rate classification for the smallest telephone exchanges.
March 4, 1975

I could speak at length on the representations which were made to the minister, but let me conclude by saying that the minister simply ignored those representations and allowed the rate increase requested by Bell Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have already said that in our view, giving the job of regulating rates to the CRTC and taking it away from the CTC cannot be anything but an improvement. There is certainly no agency in existence, or contemplated, which could do a worse job than the CTC or the Board of Transport Commissioners before it. Having said that, it seems to me that if parliament does not first ask itself what the objectives are which we set in the provision of telephone service, we tie the hands of the agency which is supposed to regulate the rates, so that we cannot do a job-because if it is our intention to provide telephone service to all Canadian citizens who want that service, there is one approach, namely, that we tell the regulatory agency what the objective is and then try to implement that objective. We believe that should be the objective.
Just as we now say that every person is entitled to adequate housing, education and health standards, we say that in this modern age every person should be provided with telephone service. If that is said, the question is approached from one point of view. If, on the other hand, we say-as we seem to be saying in the way in which people are provided with telephones in parts of Ontario, Quebec and the territories-that in the providing of telephone service an important aspect shall be that the private investors shall make a reasonable profit, whatever that may be, then of course the provision of service is an entirely different matter. We believe that once that is done-that is what we have done in Ontario and Quebec for many years and it is what this government obviously expects to continue-the job of the regulatory agency is an entirely different matter and becomes extremely difficult and complex to carry out.
What are the needs of the people? How many people do not have telephones? Why do they not have telephones? What is the proper rate of return that the company which provides the telephones should receive? All these are questions which the new agency will have to deal with. I suggest it is not enough to say that the agency will be given the responsibility of regulating telephone rates. We have to ask ourselves not just the policy questions which this government obviously has not even thought about- and which I have asked-but also if we have provided the old regulatory agency, the CTC, with the staff to really examine the costs of Bell Canada so that they can set a fair rate. We must also ask ourselves whether we will provide sufficient staff for the new regulatory agency, the expanded CRTC, to do the job. If one looks at the job which the CTC has done, whether it is on the question of railway freight rates, air rates, or telephones, it becomes obvious that the CTC has never had the necessary staff to really set, in any kind of realistic framework, the rates for any of these commodities or services.
We have been told that the number of employees the CTC has to work on telephone rates is not more than three people. I suggest that if that is true, it must be impossible for the CTC to do the job adequately and it will be just as impossible for the new CRTC. We want when this bill goes
Broadcasting
to committee, to be able to call witnesses representing consumer groups in order to find out what their experience has been when increases in telephone rates have been requested by Bell Telephone. We would like to call the CTC in order to find out whether it has had adequate staff in terms of numbers, experience and training and what kind of information it has been able to get from Bell Canada over the years; whether it has been able to get the information required in order to arrive at fair judgments as to what telephone rates should be each time an application for an increase has been made.
The CTC, in dealing with the last application for an increase, expressed the view that a rate adjustment formula should be adopted which would index the rates of Bell to various cost factors and therefore preclude hearings on rate increase requests from Bell which have been so frequent in recent years. The board seemed to feel that it wanted a formula which would guarantee the rate of profit for Bell. We oppose this kind of proposal and we would like to know whether the government endorsed this proposal of the Canadian Transport Commission.
If we are going to move toward the principle of a guaranteed annual income, we do not believe that the place to start is Bell Canada. Many people in this country-probably 25 per cent-are now living in a state of poverty, as calculated by the Economic Council or by the Senate committee which studied the question of poverty. I do not know whether the minister is still interested in the plight of ordinary people, but at the time of the asbestos workers' strike he showed a great deal of interest in the ordinary people. I hope he will continue to show this interest.
If we are to begin a guaranteed annual income program by guaranteeing the income of certain groups of people, let us begin with poor people and not with the shareholders of Bell Canada. In approving the last rate increase, the government said it would monitor the performance of Bell Canada, and that if Bell's profits exceeded an acceptable rate of return-which the government set at from 8.6 per cent to 9.1 per cent, which was itself up from an earlier 8.2 per cent and a maximum on a rate on economic equity of 12 per cent from an earlier 10.4 per cent-it would monitor the effect of the increases on the public.
When we get to committee, we in the NDP would like to know whether the government in fact has monitored Bell's performance since it permitted those increases. The minister nods his head to indicate that it has. The consumers of this country who have to deal with Bell Canada are not entirely satisfied with this government and with the mere nodding of the minister's head that it has monitored Bell. They would like to know the result of that monitoring. They would like to know how much profit Bell Canada has made in the last few years, because as sure as I am standing here today, Bell will be asking for another increase in the very near future.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not take this opportunity to point out that the people of Ontario and Quebec will not have telephone service at fair and reasonable rates while Bell Canada remains a private company. Fair and reasonable rates cannot be achieved by monitor-

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
ing; they can only be achieved for the people of Ontario and Quebec by bringing telephone systems under public ownership instead of allowing them to remain under private ownership as is the case with Bell Canada. I do not make this point in any spirit of doctrinaire narrowness. I do not make it necessarily because I believe in the theory of public ownership. I make it because the record in Canada shows that publicly-owned telephone systems provide competent and efficient service at lower rates than those charged by Bell Canada.
Long before the NDP existed as a political party, long before the CCF was a political party and long before any party espoused the principle of public ownership of basic services, the people of the three prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, enjoyed the benefits of publicly-owned telephone systems. In Manitoba, the publicly-owned telephone system was established some time between 1905 and 1910. It was established by the Conservative government headed by Sir Robert Roblin, the grandfather of the later Conservative premier, Duff Roblin. These publicly-owned systems are alive and well in the three prairie provinces. They provide modern and efficient service for the people of the provinces.
Let us do what the CTC consistently refuses to do, compare rates in the prairie provinces with rates in Ontario and Quebec. Let us compare the rates for villages, towns and cities. In every case we shall find that publicly-owned systems provide services at costs substantially below the costs of the services provided by Bell Canada in Ontario and Quebec. I shall put a few examples on record to let the minister know that what I am saying is correct. First, let us consider rates for exchanges governing between 2,000 and 5,000 stations. The residential rate, per month, at Drumheller, Alberta, is $3.65; at Melville, Saskatchewan, $3.36; at Thompson, Manitoba, $3.20; at Atiko-kan, Ontario, $4.46; and at Baie St.-Paul, Quebec, $4.59.
Let us consider rates in larger towns where exchanges govern between 10,000 and 20,000 stations. The rate at Clairmont, Alberta, is $4. That is the residential rate. The rate at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, is $3.89; at Brandon, Manitoba, $3.62; at Port Hope, Ontario, $5.04; and at Chapeau, Quebec, $5.18. These are all monthly rates. Let us consider towns over with 100,000 stations. The monthly rate in Calgary is $4.25; in Winnipeg, Manitoba, $4.10; in Burlington, Ontario, $6.09; and in Quebec City, $6.37.
The figures quoted speak for themselves and show what happens when telephone service is owned publicly or privately. If the minister is interested in the well-being of the people of his province and of Ontario, I suggest that he should consider the advisability of the government's taking over Bell Canada and operating it as a publicly-owned telephone system. This can, and should be done as a joint venture in which the two provinces concerned and the federal government participate. I have said we will support this bill and why we think it will serve to improve the regulation of telephone rates in Ontario and Quebec. I have mentioned our reservations. All the same, we have a good deal of confidence in the present members of the CTC. We are confident they will do the best job they can in regulating telephone rates. Having said that, I must repeat what I said previously, that telephone service will

be cheaper and better if it is provided by a publicly-owned
system.
Divisions of responsibility as between the federal government and the provinces have complicated the regulating of the various telecommunication services. We do not think the federal government should lay down policy unilaterally or establish agencies for regulating in this field without first consulting the provinces. Neither should it attempt unilaterally to police various fields of communication by establishing boards, agencies or other bodies the members of which are appointed entirely by the federal government. We think that the criticisms of all ten provinces are valid, that there should be a much greater exchange of ideas and that provincial requests for jurisdiction in this area to be fairly divided should be dealt with in a more co-operative fashion than has heretofore been evident. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie will speak at greater length on this subject.
In committee we intend to question witnesses actively and aggressively. Many of our questions we hope, will be answered. Then when the bill returns to this House at a later stage, we shall know more than we do now about what the government intends to do.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that it is necessary to have an adequate agency to control and evaluate all communications, to the extent of and according to the aspirations of every group in this country. However, the following point of view should be taken into consideration. I think the provinces should have their say in certain areas. That is why I think every province's point of view regarding culture and education should be taken into account, as I said earlier. To that end I think that each province should have a representative on that committee, so that the latter can really coordinate the needs of everyone.
With respect to the province of Quebec, we know that a conflict of jurisdiction is now shaping up between the province and the federal government with regard to cable television. It would be deplorable if this jurisdictional matter were to drag on and deprive the whole people of the Gaspe peninsula and a large number on the Northern Shore and the Lower Northern Shore, of adequate CBC information services.
With regard to communications in general, there is no doubt that this jurisdiction should be exclusively federal.
As I said earlier, each province should have a representative in order to protect their own culture and education.
I have just talked about the conflict of jurisdiction with respect to cable television which arose following the granting of a cable permit to Mr. Dionne of Matane, which covered the cities of Rimouski, Mont-Joli part of the Matapedia valley and certain places surrounding those municipalities. Later on, Quebec granted a permit to somebody else in the Rimouski area.
It is obvious there is not room for two cables in that area because in my opinion it would be similar to a telephone line with two parallel wires. We also know that the instal-
March 4, 1975

lation of a cable is a costly proposition and there is certainly no room for two parallel cables. That would result in a poor service, and it would be necessary to have two competitors.
That is why I ask the minister to take urgent steps to enforce compliance of his decision to grant a cable permit to Mr. Dionne of Matane whose name I mentioned a few moments ago. Otherwise, he would have to see to it that CBC gets into Rimouski as soon as possible to give to every taxpayer all the services he is entitled as much as the rest of the people in this country. We could thus assure the people in my riding, the whole Gaspe Peninsula and the Northern Shore that the federal government can take its responsibilities and give to everyone according to their merits.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to urge CBC to get into Rimouski relatively soon. When I say "get into" I mean to provide for all the services offered by that Corporation.
I hope that my comments will bear fruit and that Rimouski will soon be served by a CBC station.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of a debate on such a bill, one can hardly resist the temptation of addressing this House, especially if one has the privilege of representing a Quebec constituency where people are always conscious of the various problems which concern the province of Quebec, as well as the Saint-Hyacinthe area.
The debate which opened this afternoon on Bill C-5 should be rather short considering the contents of the bill. At first glance, this looks like a harmless and perhaps trivial bill. Actually, this is a bill designed to create another commission made up of nine full-time members and ten part-time members and to set their salaries and fees. Such is essentially the purpose of this bill. It is obvious that the minister certainly intends to appoint as members of that commission, the most praiseworthy and qualified people, distinguished men and women who will really serve their country. He does not intend to use that new commission as a kind of haven for people who have well served the Liberal party.
Taking for granted the minister's good intentions that will be ascertained after the passage of the bill, it is very difficult to stay away from this debate. Besides the somewhat minor importance of the text before us, and therein lies the importance of this debate, this text has a scope, a meaning that must be analyzed and scrutinized, because we, from Quebec, are aware of the matters in dispute between the federal government and the Quebec government in respect of telecommunications and broadcasting.
A few days ago, the Quebec Minister of Communications had the opportunity to express in his own way on the CBC network, the views of his government and ask a few questions. If I am not mistaken, I hear the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) who seems to say that it was a Pequiste. As far as I am aware, Mr. L'Allier is still a member of the Liberal cabinet.


An hon. Member:: He will be there soon.
Broadcasting


Claude Wagner: He will be there soon, said the hon. member. I know that the number of members in this party goes down almost every day in Quebec. But I know that Mr. L'Allier would be very pleased to hear the hon. member for Montmorency tell him publicly that his days are numbered.
I for one refuse to recognize that this debate should begin on a partisan basis. On the contrary, I think that the Quebec government whichever it may be, represents the will of Quebecers and consequently should encourage all those working in public administration at the federal level or elsewhere to recognize this fact and to respect the will expressed by the Quebec government. When this government changes, whichever party comes to power, Unionist, Progressive Conservative or Pequist, it will be the legitimate representative of the Quebec population. And it is in that context that I will discuss the Ottawa-Quebec conflict. Just look at the newspaper headlines and you will see that in the Province of Quebec this is a very sensitive matter. Here are some headlines:
Quebec and Ottawa are not on the same wavelength. Cable Jurisdiction. The issue goes before the courts. L'Allier denounces federal rigidity and wishes to negociate with Gerard Pelletier. Gerard Pelletier makes another attempt and tells about the cultural sovereignty trap. Pelletier avoids the cultural sovereignty trap.
And there are many more headlines. And I think that Le Devoir even said:
The leadership crisis. Pelletier expresses concern.
I do not know if it is the Minister or someone else who commented on the statement made by the Prime Minister himself in Montreal about Quebec, but someone said:
It is the business of the citizens of that province. If they like their government, they keep it whether Ottawa likes it or not and if they do not like it they fight it whether Ottawa likes it or not.
Let me tell you Mr. Speaker, that the question is not whether or not a government is liked.


An hon. Member:: It is a matter of politics.


Claude Wagner: The question is whether a government serves satisfactorily or not the people who elected it. The question is whether a government represents or not the interests of the people. It is a matter of knowing whether a government has the right to make certain claims, even though those claims are made to a federal government which, on occasion, feels almighty in certain jurisdictions.
I say then, Mr. Speaker, that this bill calls for detailed consideration on our part. I was delighted a while ago, to hear my colleague from Regina East (Mr. Balfour) with the his usual level-headedness, fully explain the point of view of the official opposition through observations that deserve the congratulations of all hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, during this debate, the minister will have the opportunity of answering the questions put to him publicly by the Quebec Minister of Communications last Sunday during a television program, namely: Sometime in April, will the minister agree to another meeting of the provincial ministers and the federal representative to discuss this contentious matter? This time, will there be more than palaver? Will negotiations really start? Will some importance really be given the claims of other provinces? Needless to say, Quebec is not the only party to this
3768

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
quarrel: on the contrary. Quebec feels supported by several other provinces.
Those questions will be answered before the bill is read the econd time. Let me just say that consideration of this bill establishing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will give us the opportunity of finding out how the Canadian government feels about national unity. National unity has been talked about aimlessly at times and has been the subject of many speeches, but national unity should really be reflected in the actions of governments.
In the bill before us the government will have the opportunity of indicating very clearly what is its concept of national unity, how it wishes to further it and above all establish it across the country. If Canada was built, linked and united by the railways, as the eminent and congenial Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said recently, paradoxically it is now divided on the matter of communications.
Since the Broadcasting Act of 1968 was adopted, no significant legislation has been enacted nor has any new commitment been undertaken, despite major technological changes and the justifiable concern of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we must hope and clamour, so as to make are sure to be heard, that the potential Commission provided for in Bill C-5 will first protect and ensure the development of political, social and economic life in Canada, second that it will contribute to ensure the movement and the exchange of regional and cultural information, and third, that it will also contribute to the development of national unity which is not factitious, which is not artificial, but which comes from a harmonization of our linguistic and cultural differences. It will also have to reflect the Canadian identity, the Canadian personality and the diversity of cultures and of social values in Canada. The Commission will also have to facilitate the orderly development of telecommunications in Canada by Canadians representing both founding groups of this country and to provide all Canadians with efficient and economical services and fair rates.
Mr. Speaker, in order to reach these objectives, the government will have to endeavor immediately to solve these problems with the intensive cooperation of the provinces. We could not emphasize too much this capital element of any policy which must be developed and defined by the central government.
We know quite well how important it is to respect the autonomy and rights of the provinces, to act towards them with much more flexibility, so that the conflicts that have been so frequent in recent history might be avoided. And it is precisely because this respect for provincial jurisdiction is almost an innate feeling that we say to the minister today that, if he wants to reach the aims I have just mentioned, there must be close cooperation with the provinces, not only for one or two days, at a seminar concluded by a press release which some parties are prepared to agree to while others refuse to do so. No!
There must be a continued and unceasing dialogue, an opening of mind towards the provinces, particularly towards Quebec, because the current conflicts between

broadcasting, teledistribution and transmission companies, on one hand, and those between provincial or federal jurisdictions on this matter, on the other hand, are such that they require from people in government much more flexibility than what we have been used to in the past.
Mr. Speaker, it is completely abnormal that, on communications, as the headlines I have mentioned earlier can show, Quebec and Ottawa should not see eye to eye. It is paradoxical. Therefore the federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) must suggest administrative arrangements to the provinces and guarantee them real participation in national regulatory agencies. Furthermore, he must establish with the provinces the respective jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments on this matter.
The CRTC maintains that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over broadcasting and cablevision. But there are other people, such as legal expert Gordon Henderson of Ottawa, who believe that the existing Broadcasting Act does not bear a clear mention of the federal jurisdiction on cablevision.
As you are all aware, the position of Quebec minister L'Allier on cablevision has already been supported by Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, and whatever the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) who interrupted me a while ago might think, Ontario and Manitoba do not to my knowledge have separatist governments and the ministers of communications in those provinces, who support the claims of the Quebec minister, do not have separatist tendencies and are not about to leave confederation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that in these circumstances, we must expose the situation vigorously. And I hope that I shall not be the only one to do so, and that other Quebec members on both sides of the House will join me in exposing very clearly, objectively and responsibly the rigidity of the federal government, and in strongly urging the federal Minister of Communications to negotiate with his provincial counterparts without always holding up the ultimate weapon of the Supreme Court. There will always be an opportunity to do so.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that in such cases the solution is not always for the courts to decide. When such differences have political implications, the responsibility lies with political authorities to arrive at permanent solutions through dialogue, talks and meetings, instead of shifting the burden on the courts in the hope that their decision will put an end to litigations or wrangles.
As far as Quebec is concerned in this matter, the federal Minister of Communications should not ponder, as the Prime Minister did, whether that province's government is popular or not when it makes claims of a rather embarrassing nature. It will be quite enough for the minister to realize, for instance, that at the bottom of that difference lies a basic concern of Quebecers who want to have a say on technological developments in communications. This Quebec wish that I am expressing in this House contains or hides no cultural sovereignty trap. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how some politicians are in fear of being trapped by words. They should be above that, or strong enough to look at the facts beyond the words.


Mr. Duclos:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
March 4, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Montmorency on a point of order.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe referred to the Quebec government's will to assume greater responsibility in the area of communications. I would point out to the House that the intentions of Quebecers can be made known as properly by my Quebec colleagues and myself, who have been elected at the last election, as through the Quebec government. I believe that the outcome of the last election has clearly shown where the Quebecers' confidence lies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will agree with the Chair that he may totally disagree with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, but the normal procedure consistent with our rules is to take part in the debate. He might express his views after the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. But to rise on a point of order because he disagrees with the speaker is against the rules. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Anderson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member whether the translation was correct that he said he was the spokesman for Quebec in this House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say I was not listening to the translation.


Hugh Alan Anderson: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if that was the correct translation, I suggest he is perhaps the spokesman for Quebec in the Conservative party but certainly not for this side of the House.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: In English!


Claude Wagner: I beg your pardon, Madam,-


An hon. Member:: In English, please!


Claude Wagner: In English, for you! Well, all right!
At the request of a Liberal member, I shall now tell him in English what I wanted to say in French.

At the hon. member's request I would very much like to repeat the speech that I have been making in French, but I am sure that the translators have very correctly translated what I said, so I will not quarrel with what they had to say. On the other hand I welcome with great pleasure the invitation that has just been extended to us by one of the backbenchers of the Liberal party, who said he would also like to speak up for Quebec from time to time. I am looking forward to hearing the 54 to 56 Liberal members from Quebec state their point of view, as they should always do, whether on questions of communications, matters dealing with petroleum or any other question affecting the whole of Canada.
Broadcasting

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of-


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) on a question of privilege.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) just spoke in both languages, I understood him well. So, he calls himself the Quebec leader, the leader of members from Quebec here in Parliament, although if we recall the last election campaign, he was not even the Quebec leader for the Progressive Conservative Party then. Today he represents only two other members, with whom he does not even get along well, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, your very refusal to reply to the hon. member indicates what you think of his point of order.
Nevertheless, I would like to add something. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) was addressing me, a few moments ago, when he said: "You were not here when I said that." Oh yes, I was here, and it is for that reason that I think it is my duty to say what I am saying now.
After hearing the minister, I feel bound to answer him and remind him that there is another point of view that should be considered in all fairness.
As for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Guay), I also thank him for his remarks. I think the recent appointment of a new Quebec leader was a welcome change, for the new leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), showed his expertness and competence in Saint-Hyacinthe during the last election campaign. And I hope that very expertness will be displayed throughout Quebec at the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I go on-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I have another question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis on a question of privilege.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Once again, Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I shall remind the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that during the last election campaign, the federal ministers from Quebec could cover the whole province, whereas he could not because his party would not let him.


An hon. Member:: He was wandering in Saint-Hyacinthe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the House should realize that if this debate is to progress, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should be allowed to complete his remarks. It will soon be five o'clock, and then we shall get on with our evening proceedings.
28996-34%

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I shall not answer my colleague from Levis because I do not wish to, but I might point out that I also travelled throughout the country during the last campaign. I did not have to go very far, because the whole cabinet was in my constituency. If I wanted to meet some minister or other, I had no problem since they were all there. The only one who did not come was the hon. member for Levis.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that insofar as Quebec is concerned with that extremely important matter of communications, the minister should always keep in mind the deep and fundamental aspirations of the Quebec people, namely their true wish and feeling that they should have their say in the technological development of communications.
This debate is essentially a political one, and that is why I stressed the fact a moment ago that a political situation calls for a political solution and not a judicial one.
Mr. Speaker, those are some of the thoughts I had and which I might possibly clarify further, in both languages if necessary. I shall clarify them once we start the committee study of the various clauses of this bill.
May I conclude by repeating that I hope all members whether on the government side or in the opposition, will resist the temptation to remain silent and will express themselves freely, whatever their political affiliation, whatever their personal feelings. If so, the debate will be an extremely interesting one and it will be seen that Quebec members of this House give much consideration to the legitimate aspirations which the Quebec Minister of Communications has been talking about for some time on behalf of the population and the government of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I see it is only five minutes before the private members' hour so I will not have that much time to get into detail on Bill C-5 presently before the House.
This bill is an attempt by the government to combine the existing Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Radio-television Commission into one super agency to deal with the growing problems in respect of communications in this country. Because we have such a technological explosion in terms of communications we find that legislation designed many years ago, as early as the time of Confederation, is inadequate to meet the needs of communications in this very complex world.
Many scientists are predicting what they call "the wire city" with the advent of the coaxial cable which is now bringing television to many households in the country. They foresee the time when this same cable can be used to transmit other forms of computer messages, whereby someone can do his shopping by means of a telephone hook-up. I believe there is already an experiment being conducted in Toronto whereby a person can dial directly to a department store catalogue computer service, and order items in that fashion.
As a result of this expansion in cable service we are getting into jurisdictional disputes. Under the constitution the federal government was to be in charge of broadcasting, and at the time this meant mainly telegraph service.

Then we moved into broadcasting by means of airways. With the advent of cable there are additional jurisdictional disputes because the provinces, through their telephone companies, claim the right to regulate cable service.
We are now faced with a question as to the definition of broadcasting; does it include cable television and, if so, who has jurisdiction, the federal government or the provinces? This bill is an attempt to deal with these very complex problems. They are complex, indeed, because in spite of the attempts of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) to sit down with the provinces and come up with some kind of agreement, there has been very little success to date.
During my speech I should like to analyze what I think are some of the pitfalls in attempting to set up this super regulatory agency, and outline what I think will be some of the weaknesses. I want also to offer some suggestions to the minister on how he can improve communications with the provincial governments in order to resolve this very complex problem of jurisdiction.
I see it is five o'clock. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock and continue at eight this evening?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- Bilingualism-Possibility of financial assistance to groups contesting constitutionality of Bill 22; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Penitentiaries-Use of Bur-wash Industrial Farm as medium security institution; the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)-Agriculture-Inequity between tariff on imported cheese and Canadian cheese imported by European Common Market.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there might be disposition in the House to proceed with three bills that deal with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in the usual way of dealing with these matters, with the consent of hon. members. The three bills are Bill C-228, in the name of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas); Bill C-229, in the name of the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), and Bill C-365, in the name of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Yanakis). I would hope it would be
March 4, 1975

possible for them to receive second and third reading today.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, we see no reason to quarrel with the suggestion that these bills be put through. They are bills which involve only a matter of changing the names of the ridings. This is normally a privilege afforded hon. members when one or two bills can be grouped together. We would agree to putting them through all stages during this private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is there first unanimous consent that Bills C-228, C-229 and C-365 be modified in order that they can be referred to the Committee of the whole House instead of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
# (1700)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House also agree that we put the second reading motion in respect of the three bills one after the other, so that we may go into committee of the whole and consider the three bills without having the same process three times?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce) moved: that Bill C-228, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Crawford Douglas: the third reading of the bill.
He said: Madam Speaker, I think it is only fair that I speak on behalf of all hon. members whose bills are before the House in order to thank the House for moving so quickly on these bills.
Speaking in my own particular case may I simply say it is a matter of trying to allow for representation for a larger segment of the riding I now serve due to the fact that approximately one half of the riding is contained in another township. It was felt that those people residing in the townships of the county of Grey indeed formed a part of the representation of the member of the House for the riding of Bruce. Now the riding is to be known as Bruce-Grey. On behalf of myself and the other hon. members again I should like to thank the House for the quick consideration and passage of these bills at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act AMENDMENT RESPECTING CHANGE IN NAME OF CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine) moved: that Bill C-229, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Cyril Lloyd Francis: that Bill C-365, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier) moved: the third reading of the bill.

He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the House for having accepted so quickly the bill I brought in. It ensures much more justice and describes much more clearly the constituency I represent.
I wanted to introduce this bill following the change in the name of the Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere constituency. My riding was called Berthier, but I do represent Maskinonge as well. So I moved this bill to correct the discrepancy. I think it will prove much more fair to my constituency. Once more I thank the House for having passed second and third reading of my bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There does not seem to be any further business before the House. Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock the House stands adjourned until 8 p.m.
At 5.12 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Broadcasting


[Stage Direction]
The House res'umed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga) that Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the Broadcasting Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume my comments on Bill C-5, on which I began to speak prior to the adjournment at five o'clock for private members' hour.
This bill was brought forward by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) to combine the existing regulatory bodies, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Radio-television Commission, into one super regulatory agency. I said earlier this afternoon that we in the NDP have some major criticisms about this proposal. Our first reservation is that the history of super regulatory agencies-such as the parallel agency in the United States which is the Federal Communications Commission-shows that the large agency tends to be subservient to the communications corporation interest. In fact what happens is that they tend to allow vertical integration and the strengthening of the monopoly of a few key industries in the communications system.
We also find, judging from the American example, that such huge regulatory bodies of common carriers develop a fixation on technology. In other words, the medium rather than the message becomes the most important thing. The body becomes concerned about regulating the actual hardware of cable television, wave television, and other aspects of the communication system, and looks at the technology rather than the content. It seems to us very important that this super agency should not diminish its role in examining the medium, the content of television, radio, telecommunication and other related areas.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), pointed out earlier this afternoon the lamentable record of the Canadian Transport Commission in standing up for citizens' interests against corporation interests. I do not want to go into that in too much detail, but suffice it to say that example after example has shown that when CPR or Bell Canada came before the CTC asking for a rate increase, usually they got it, and consumer groups attempting to put forward their case were hindered by lack of resources and lack of funds. They could not match the phalanx of lawyers or experts that the big corporations had to present their cases before the CTC.
Our hope is that because the CTC has such a lamentable record, the new super agency will correct some of that imbalance whereby the CTC has tended to listen more intently to the presentations of the large corporations rather than to individuals or consumer groups.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
The CRTC has had a somewhat better record regarding regulating broadcasting, promoting Canadian content and trying to regulate advertising. I am not saying that the record of CRTC is perfect, but certainly to make a comparison between its concern and that of the CTC about content and Canadian identity, and perhaps to some degree consumerism, its record is much more laudable than that of the CTC.
We hope that in the new agency the philosophy and approach of the CRTC will prevail rather than that of the CTC. However, somehow I have doubts about that because no matter what agency one sets up unless there is a strong minister, and a government setting out clear guidelines and making sure its agency pursues those guidelines in a vigorous way, it is doomed to failure in protecting the public's interest.
There are two questions that really need to be answered about the new agency proposed in Bill C-5. The first is, how strong will be the guidelines which the government will give to the agency? The second is, how adequate will its backup staff be to supervise those guidelines? Turning first to the guidelines, we notice already that one of the major weaknesses of the CTC is that the government has not ensured that the CTC vigorously pursued some of the guidelines set by the original legislation.
The Canadian Transport Commission was set up in light of the fact that we have monopoly institutions in this country in transportation and communications. The CTC was designed to protect the public interest. We know that the government and its predecessors have been somewhat lax in seeing that that goal was upheld. For instance, in the minority twenty-ninth parliament when the New Democratic Party was able to bring some pressure to bear on behalf of Canadian consumers, we prevented a further increase in Bell Telephone rates by arguing that in light of the profit position of Bell the increase was unjustified. Now that we have a majority parliament we see that decision reversed, and the government allowing the rate increase.
What I am saying is that we must have clear guidelines for the new regulatory agency, and we must have a government which will stand up and force the agency to pursue those guidelines vigorously.
The CRTC, despite its somewhat better record than that of the CTC, also has a number of weaknesses. Again it is a problem of the government not backing the agency or giving it the power to pursue its original mandate in a very vigorous way. I quote from the mandate given to the CRTC. This is in the Broadcasting Act, section 3(g). It states that the national broadcasting service should, and I quote:
be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportion.
And from the same act:
-contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
Those are laudable aims and guidelines for the CRTC, and yet when we look at the past policy decisions of this regulatory agency we find that it has fallen somewhat
March 4, 1975

short of those intentions. I give as an example the recent licensing of a new English television network in Canada, the Global television network. This was done without prior policy hearings throughout the country. Here we have a situation where a third television network is set up in Canada, although the Global network is basically just in southern and central Ontario despite the fact that if a third network is justified, we really need one based more in western Canada.
One of the great criticisms of the CBC and the CTV is that they are located in central Canada, and they express that kind of viewpoint. Many of their stories and personnel originate from that area of the country, and western Canadians, I think quite justifiably, feel that only the central part of Canada is getting attention. News comes with a particular bias from that region, and the west does not have a voice. It must be irksome to people in western Canada to hear Toronto oriented news stories, just as much as it is for us in northern Ontario. Here is an example of the CRTC not really carrying through its mandate to have full hearings on the establishment of a third television network.
I have a criticism of the CRTC on its lack of success in diverting cablevision revenue into general broadcasting, and also its failure to promote non commercial television service. I think there is a place in Canada for a non commercial service. I think this is what the CBC should be. We know that the CBC radio network is moving in that direction, and I think it would be a good test to allow the CBC television also to move toward a non commercial status. Then we could compare the private networks with a non commercial national network. The CRTC has not really pressed for this development, and I think that is quite lamentable.
My third criticism of the CRTC-and again I am using this as an illustration to point out that unless the government sets clear guidelines and gives the agency the power to pursue them, we have an agency in name rather than in fact-is that the CRTC has the power to make regulations regarding broadcasting, but its great drawback is that it cannot deal with the financial implications of such decisions. For example, the CRTC recently moved to reduce commercials on CBC television, especially children's commercials.
The interesting thing is that when the CRTC passes an edict down to the CBC saying that it must remove or reduce children's commercials, the CRTC has no power to authorize introduction of estimates in this parliament to make up for the loss of revenue suffered by the CBC television network. The CRTC then cannot provide funding for such reforms, and therefore its hands are tied. I fear that the new regulatory agency will be in the same boat.
Another example is that the CRTC is quite strong on Canadian content, as it should be. We have moved toward higher Canadian content in radio, but I give the example of the CRTC demanding 60 per cent Canadian content for the CTV network and then having to back down because CTV said it could not possibly manage it, and a compromise of only 50 per cent Canadian content was reached in return for extended service. In other words, because the CRTC is forced to allow television to solicit advertising
Broadcasting
revenue-and I find it almost incredible that with a publicly owned national network we have 12 minutes of advertising per hour on television, which is more than the private American networks-we have this conflict of interest where the CRTC is supposed to regulate advertising, but at the same time recognizes that it cannot do very much against advertising because of its inability to provide alternate funding or to recommend with any force alternate funding for these television networks.
I find it very sad that the CRTC has refused to act on a growing problem facing television in this country, and that is the use of advertising. I am afraid that in certain circumstances advertising has now taken on the air of political propaganda. I give as an example the recent series of commercials by Imperial Oil on Hockey Night in Canada, where this foreign owned company is making a political statement about the necessity of having higher revenues, by implication saying that the governments are taking too much in taxes and have created a supply crisis in this country. There is no provision for advertisements to counter that kind of political propaganda, and either the CRTC should demand that these commercials stop or at least provide an alternative opportunity for rebuttal, which it has not been doing. I think that that is a very serious indication of what is happening to advertising when large, multinational corporations can twist the intent of the Broadcasting Act and be allowed to put this kind of commercial on the national network without any chance of correction or rebuttal.
What I am saying is that if we are going to have this new super agency, we must have strength and guidelines. We cannot have a repetition of the kind of activity where the CTC favours large corporations over the private consumer. Nor should the CRTC be further weakened by unclear guidelines. The agency must be given power to implement its mandate. Adequate guidelines are essential for the work of a regulatory agency. I doubt if the government is serious about implementing such guidelines.
The second question I raise is, how adequate will be the staffing of the new regulatory agency? Obviously, if you combine under one agency two former agencies, you will double the workload of the new agency. According to the bill, serving on this agency will, be nine full-time and ten part-time directors. Compare that with the present board of the CRTC. Today there are five full-time and ten part-time directors serving on that body. Clearly the workload of the new agency will be increased and fewer directors will handle it; therefore the directors will be overworked.
Equally important is the size of the office support staff. Because the field of communications is complex, it must be studied. Many briefs will have to be read, analysed and processed. Large businesses dealing with the new agency can hire dozens of lawyers and technical experts to present briefs which, in effect, overwhelm agency staff. Unless the support staff is enlarged, the proposed agency will find itself in the same predicament as the CTC and, to a lesser extent, the CRTC.
When a regulatory body receives hundreds of pages of briefs and dozens of volumes of data from a company like


COMMCHS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
Bell, can you imagine how hard it is to examine such material? If regulatory bodies find this task hard, can you imagine how hard it is for consumer groups which lack the staff of an agency and the expertise available to businesses appearing before it?
Who will be on the board of this super regulatory agency? Will it be staffed only by lawyers, engineers and technocrats? If so, the new agency will act in the same way as the FCC in the United States has acted. The technocrats on the American commission are more concerned about the medium than the message. Such a step in this country would be a backward one. If broadcasters are included on the board of directors, how can we avoid conflicts of interest? Perhaps these questions can best be answered in committee.
The bill has not provided for any consumer advisory bureau which would assist consumers to prepare briefs or oppose communication oriented companies seeking to increase rates. Such a bureau should be established to assist consumers, and to help them travel from various parts of Canada to attend hearings here in Ottawa. Consumers found it difficult to travel from various parts of the country to Ottawa to attend CRTC and CTC hearings. The average consumer or consumer group cannot compete successfully with experts available to corporations. If the minister is serious about establishing an agency which will hear both sides of the story, he must amend the bill and provide for the establishment of a consumer bureau that will provide technical and expert advice, and funds as well, to enable consumers to travel, hire lawyers, and present their case before the board. We of the NDP hope the new agency will not repeat the mistakes of existing agencies. We hope it will move in a new direction and protect the public interest.
This bill sets the stage for the first battle between the provinces and the federal government over which will regulate broadcasting and cable television in this country. Broadcasting is now more complex than ever and cannot be equated merely with the transmission of waves through the air. Signals are transmitted via coaxial cable, the implications of which are immense. People will be able to hook into a computer circuit directly and order a product, pay a bill, or obtain information. What has been called the "wired city" is growing and will affect future developments in this country. Therefore it is important that we establish ground rules as to who will control what.
The federal and provincial governments are arguing over jurisdiction. Traditionally the federal government has controlled the airwaves and, hence, broadcasting. Traditionally the provinces have controlled telephone service and therefore claim jurisdiction over cable, which will be used in future for broadcasting and computer retrieval systems.
It is worth reviewing the positions of the provinces to help us keep the provisions of this bill in perspective. At the federal communications conference Alberta suggested that the provincial government "must have an input into the regulation of cable." Alberta officials stated that if its benefits are to be brought to their scattered people outside the densely populated urban areas, there must be a provincial master plan. This means an involvement of the provinces in the setting of franchise boundaries and the regu-
lation of rates. Provinces are legitimately concerned about the nature of cable television within provincial jurisdictions.
Ontario stated that because of the local nature of cable television the government of Ontario believes it must be responsible for the franchise area, the granting of the franchise and the designation of the services to be supplied, including educational, community and household services, and all-closed circuit aspects such as pay TV and information retrieval.
The position of Saskatchewan was that national broadcasting policy must balance the need to support the development of a viable production industry against the need to extend broadcasting distribution to all Canadians. Saskatchewan too is concerned about developing this network to serve remote communities of the province.
The position of Manitoba was that decentralization of control of cable television was a means of reversing the rural-urban shift. The potential for regional development which could result from a realistic decentralization of federal government electronic data processing activities was promising.
What was the attitude of the government of Quebec? I am worried, because so far no Quebec Liberal members have spoken in this debate. The attitude of the Premier of Quebec is important. He said, and I quote:
In cultural matters, the decision making centres we require for our own cultural security must be transferred, especially in the field of communications. This again is a simple matter of common sense since an English-speaking majority cannot be entrusted with ensuring the cultural security of a French-speaking minority. My government's position on this matter could be flexible as to form, but as far as the basic issues and the objectives are concerned, it is, and will remain firm, clear and determined.
Here we see the concern of the premier of Quebec about provincial jurisdiction in order to protect the cultural indentity of the French language group.
British Columbia is also concerned about jurisdiction over cable. Its officials say that an effective national policy in communications must respect the diversity of regions by being sufficiently flexible to permit varying solutions to diverse communications problems. A flexible national policy must accommodate the exercise of federal and provincial responsibilities in the implementation of differing policies among regions.
That, in brief form, is a summary of the attitudes of some of the provinces. The key theme running through this is that the provinces want to have an input into communications policy. They have certain regional and educational priorities for their people. They have a desire to protect their cultural identity and develop a regional consciousness. As a result, they need to have a say in communications policy making.
Against that we have the position of the federal government that says it has to govern for all of Canada. It says it has to promote a sense of Canadian identity and unity.
The federal government was somewhat taken aback by the united front of provinces wanting control over cable television as I have outlined. We are now faced with a problem which this bill just begins to touch on, the prob-
March 4, 1975
[Stage Direction]
lem of jurisdiction over cable. How can we reconcile the legitimate needs of the provinces to service their residents against the legitimate need of the federal government to promote national unity rather than allow the country to be balkanized by all kinds of independent provincial communications systems?
There is a choice for the federal government and the provinces. They can go one of two ways. They can take the legal route and try to settle this conflict by taking the matter to the Supreme Court. If they do that, the provinces must recognize that the decision will have to come down in favour of the federal government. I say this because of the decision given in 1932 by the Privy Council which gave the federal government complete jurisdiction over regulation and control of radio communications. The Supreme Court is bound to favour the federal government in any legal battle over who has ultimate authority and control. However, I do not think the Minister of Communications wants to take that route. He knows it would be divisive. It would cause much hard feeling and division within the country, and hinder the ultimate aim of national unity and a sense of Canadian identity.
The other, and perhaps the only choice open, is the consultative route. This route would serve the best interests of national unity. It is a route that the provinces and the federal government must follow. I regret to say that so far there has been very little progress in this area. It is obvious that we need provincial input into this new super regulatory agency. Mechanisms must be established in order to allow the provinces to argue their case before the federal government, stating why they need special development of cable communications, radio or educational television within their provincial jurisdiction.
I was interested in a letter which the Minister of Communications sent to the Hon. John Rhodes, Ontario minister of transport and communications. The letter is dated September 18, 1974. The Minister of Communications proposed four points as a means of taking this consultative route. First is the establishment of a continuing committee on communications policy, comprising the responsible federal and provincial ministers. Second is the establishment of an association of federal and provincial regulatory commissions dealing with communications. Third is provincial approval of part-time members nominated to serve on the federal regulatory body, a body which this bill will create. Fourth is participation by representatives of provincial regulatory bodies in deliberations of the federal regulatory body.
Those proposals seem sound. It is a constructive route that the provinces and the federal government can follow, yet we see very little of any such proposals coming to fruition. Indeed in Bill C-5 there is a glaring absence of any reference to the third proposal of the minister, namely, allowing the provinces to approve part-time members nominated to serve on the federal regulatory body.
One wonders what kind of communication, if any, is going on between the federal minister and his provincial counterparts. What I have heard to date leads me to believe there is very little constructive consultation going on. There is not a meeting of minds. The lines are beginning to harden; positions are becoming more rigid.
Broadcasting
I hope we do not get backed into a corner and have to face a legal constitutional battle over this issue of jurisdiction in the field of communications. As reasonable Canadians concerned not only with provincial but national rights, I hope that the federal minister and the provincial communications ministers will put less importance on who has the final say regarding the medium, and be more concerned about working out ways to have input into the message carried by this medium. In the end that is what is most important. If we do not have a content that is Canadian, alive and vigorous, promoting a Canadian identity as well as serving regional needs, we will have failed in a vital area of this country's future growth. We need to have a sound communications system.
Perhaps a compromise could be that the provinces would licence cable television to conform to the new CRTC guidelines. Perhaps it might be possible for a certain percentage of television time to be made available for provincial input. There are many areas which could be explored in a true spirit of co-operation between the central government and the provinces and, heaven knows, we certainly need more co-operation than confrontation. I hope the new regulatory agency will not repeat the mistakes made by the CTC and CRTC but that it will move in a new direction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the debate on the bill before us in order to comment briefly, perhaps too briefly, on matters which I feel should be dealt with but which, for one reason or another, have so far been avoided in the course of our discussion. Before I get to what I consider to be the main substance of what I have to say I should like to deal generally with the broadcasting and television of programs in Canada.
The act as it presently stands makes provision for identifying Canadians to other Canadians. However, in the implementation of the relevant sections it would appear that because of the concentration of population in certain areas of the country and the impact these powerful groupings have on the executive, and, possibly on the bureaucracy, to say nothing of the government and its supporters, the regulations have either been ignored or else have been very laxly interpreted. As a result, many parts of the country are still without broadcasting facilities. Many briefs have been presented on their behalf to one body or another in an attempt to redress this situation, but for reasons of economy, it is said, the eyes of the CBC, the government and the commission have always been focussed on the larger centres of population.
However, I believe the point has now been reached at which far greater emphasis should be placed on serving the more sparsely populated regions of Canada. The people living there are making a contribution to our way of life and they naturally wish to enjoy other aspects of the Canadian scene, brought into their own livingrooms as in the case of other Canadians. At the present time they seem to be treated as second rate citizens in this respect.

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
Hon. members have referred to the rights of provincial authorities and have noted how jealously the provinces guard those rights. Let us think in terms of still smaller groups of population, of minorities; one can imagine the frustration they feel when their representations are ignored year after year simply because they do not reflect the views of great numbers of people. I feel that when the government is drawing up regulations as guidelines in consultation with the commission it should recognize the situation, and ensure that when licences for broadcasting or televising are issued, those directly concerned are made fully aware of their responsibilities to provide services of the kind I have in mind.
For example, there are many native groups, particularly in northern areas such as I represent, who are desirous of making a contribution and would like broadcasting to be done in their language. I might say that CBC radio has done an admirable job in this field. Radios are carried around in these sparsely populated areas, along trap lines and so on. Trappers, prospectors and others who live in the north use radios to pick up messages as well as for entertainment; they are one of the few contacts they have with the outside world. We have an obligation to these Canadians and, in my opinion, more emphasis should be placed on serving their needs rather than continuing in the fashion we have developed. Those who live in or near urban areas already have a wide selection of programs available to them.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private companies have managed to take care of the financial problem surrounding the introduction of coloured television. For years it was argued that funds were insufficient to extend broadcasting to remote areas. However, when it came to opening up the country to coloured television, described at the time as being an extremely expensive process, funds came from somewhere. They were found because densely populated areas were able to exert a greater impact upon the government or upon the members of the commission. There is strength in numbers.
I wish to deal now with another area which should be covered because I feel a sense of frustration as a member of parliament. I feel the old Broadcasting Act, the original set-up of the CRTC, has had ample time to test out certain areas as to which way they should go. There are many members of the House of Commons who would like to comment on what I wish to say, but who feel a sense of frustration because they want to be lenient and allow the operation of our broadcasting system in such a way that censorship should not have to be exercised.
I think the intent of many members who participated in the original discussions on the act, in the committee or in the House, was that in no way should there be censorship. But what we expected from the commission was common sense. What we did not want was to see some little group allowing itself all the power and becoming untouchable in the sense that if you tamper with them you are immediately accused of censoring them. If you comment, you are a prude, you are not "with it," you are a "has-been," you are not an intellectual.
Surely every parent who cares how he brings up his family has the task of showing his offspring the difference between right and wrong. We enact regulations. We set up

green lights and red lights. We set up rules everywhere in society. Yet we give television producers in many cases absolute licence to pull the rug out from every service club, every church, every mother and father who gives a darn about their children because they want to show us that they can produce something that defies everyone and get away with it.
I am as concerned about the use of censorship as anybody. I am proud to be in a country where we can express ourselves freely. But I hate to be identified as one of a small minority. I had a very complimentary article written about me and I know I am living in the real world, but I do not think it is necessary to exploit sex on television or to use vulgar language. It is not that I am self-righteous, but I do want to speak for all those who cannot speak for themselves on this question. The message must get through to those who are charged with responsibility for our broadcasting system.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I say that I do not want to see sex as the symbol of our society. I realize the commission has a heavy role to fulfil, but as members of parliament have an obligation to society, so does the CRTC.
There seems to be a headlong rush to use advertising in order to get the greatest impact. Much use is made of television's instant message which reaches millions of people. However, by allowing certain freedoms people are able to corrupt. A few people will not be corrupted whatever the effort, but the constant use of corruption on television and certain filthy programs on television tend to undermine society. It is like an apple that is rotting from within. If this is what we expect society to be, Mr. Speaker, then I and all the people who write me are wrong.
I think the regulations as originally written were designed to steer a very fine course between censorship and freedom of expression. I have had people ask me, if a certain program was obscene, why those responsible have not been charged. But why should I or some other individual have to go to the trouble of charging these people simply because they took it upon themselves to produce something that breeds corruption? Why should we expect this of Canadian citizens? Surely there are other means of getting the message across.
This commission will be a body comprising nine full time members and ten part time members. I often wonder what happens to certain categories of submissions and whether they are automatically turned down. I have seen some of the submissions made to the commission, as I am sure other hon. members have, and I do not think that the people I represent are any different from the constituents of other hon. members. If the minister does not have sufficient authority to control the CRTC, then perhaps we should give him that authority, but these people have it in their power to cleanse themselves. Common logic should tell them what is right and what is wrong. This is not the case with the CBC television.


An hon. Member:: The untouchables.
March 4, 1975


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes, the untouchables. If it is the will of parliament to allow the CBC this kind of freedom, then at least I should have the option to withhold some portion of the money that goes towards the upkeep of a machine that corrupts society.
I realize that some people will point out that if I do not like certain programs I can always switch them off. But I do not think that a subject like sex should be exploited before millions of people. If we do not view certain programs there is naturally a certain curiosity among young people as to why this is so. I do not think a few people in the television broadcasting industry should put us in that position. Neither do I think people should have to write to me and tell me there is something wrong, and ask me what I can do about it. I am sure that every member of this House has received letters of complaint; certainly most hon. members have.


Mr. Gillies:: I have.


Stanley James Korchinski: And so, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do about this? I do not think we should be called upon as members, each and everyone, to stand in our place and announce that we have received complaints of this sort; I think there are sufficient complaints to date to place the facts before the minister and the commission. Surely they must be aware of these complaints by now. However, they tend to play it cool, and after a little while they again test us to see how far they can go. For my money they have gone too far.
Are the full and part time members of the commission going to take upon themselves the responsibility of taking action, or does parliament have to ask them to travel across the country at the expense of the public to find out for themselves? That should not be necessary. If there is a group in Canada whose submissions will not be heard, then I say we should scrap the whole commission, start again from square one, and see whether or not we can appoint members of the commission who do at least take heed of the concerns of society.
I hear so many people say these days that we have a permissive society. What has made it permissive? I suggest that what has made it permissive is nothing else but the repetition of this kind of program we see on television. When things are repeated often enough people begin to believe they are true. Here I can think of a word that has now become commonly used in the King's English but which was not known prior to the last war, and that word is blitzkrieg.
This type of permissiveness has become common on CBC radio and television, although perhaps I should separate the two because I think radio has done an admirable job. These people in television know they have a great impact on society, and they continue to corrupt our people. I suggest they know what they are doing. I do not consider them stupid, but they think that everyone else in society is stupid.
If the committee is to be charged with the responsibility of drawing up certain guidelines for the communications media I suggest the committee should do just that, because it is high time we had some guidelines. The regulations up
Broadcasting
to now have been faulty or inadequate. Obviously there are too many people who are willing to ignore them with this permissive type of programming.
Perhaps someone in the television media has already been charged under a section of the Criminal Code dealing with obscenity, but I am not aware of such a case. Perhaps this has not happened because the Criminal Code is not precise enough in those sections that deal with broadcasting. They deal adequately with writings and pictures but they do not deal specifically with television programs. Perhaps if there is an obligation on us we should accept it and change the Criminal Code in this respect. If the Broadcasting Act fails in this regard we should rewrite it, and perhaps the time to do it is during the committee hearings on this bill.
It is not good enough for us just to live with the situation or ignore it in the hope that it will go away, or just wait until we see what happens. I think we have had ample opportunity to see what has happened. I do not want to have to stand here again in the House of Commons, or have someone else make a speech on behalf of those people who are right in suggesting that certain programs are smutty. There are times when one defends a minority even though it might be wrong because one thinks perhaps it might do some good. In that case one does not mind being associated with such a group. However, in the case of the broadcasting media, particularly television, our regulations are wrong, or at least inadequate.
It has been often suggested that there is something wrong with our society because of the amount of crime and the increase in the rate of crime. We spend all kinds of money on treatment in our jails and rehabilitation centres. Very often when young people find themselves in jail we hear people making the excuse that society is at fault. They suggest that because a young offender comes from a poor family out in the sticks he has never had a chance in life. What kind of a chance are we giving our young people when we allow this type of permissiveness on CBC? Just because one or two individuals in the CBC say this is right, that does not make it so. When these people make such a decision we instantaneously get their message.
I began my remarks by saying I would be brief. Perhaps I have not spoken long enough yet to impress upon members the message I want to leave. I suggest we must look into this matter very seriously. I know the country wants us to do that. I know the people want us to do something about this type of smutty programming. The time to do something is right now, and the place is here. I suggest the minister would endear himself to a great many people in this country if he would take the step which will lead to a change in this situation, and the best feature of all is that by doing so he would be doing the right thing.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have many friends here, those I have are real
friends.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) introduced a bill to establish the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
Broadcasting Act and other acts and to enact other consequential provisions.
My remarks will be very brief, but very specific. Since everyone knows the procedure in this House, whereby each bill goes through five stages before being finally either carried, killed or amended-in other words first reading, second reading and referral to Standing committee, the report stage and, finally, third reading. After that, the other place approves what we did. I therefore feel I will have other opportunities to deal with this bill's aims and objectives, and I wish to restrict my remarks to two clauses of the bill, more specifically clause 7(1) and (2), and clause 11(c). In the meantime, we will come back to clause 10 stating the number of meetings.
Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent why I deal so specifically with this bill, ever since I came to this House, in 1968. Bills are constantly introduced by Government members to establish Commissions, Committees, structures of some kind or Crown corporations. Each time a new bureaucracy is set up. Each time, it gets almost unlimited powers. It may not be in the act, but it happens in fact. Take the Unemployment Insurance Commission for instance. That commission has an advisory committee. Yet the act is specific in that case but God knows what they do. Neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, can determine what kind of work they do, how much they are paid to do it, what are the results, since they are not accountable to Parliament.
Now, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), in an area and a field of operation, as important as communications are in a modern world, introduced a bill to create another "creature" of civil servants, another board. That one will be the Radio-television Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I see the former President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who, when he was in that portfolio, was tightening the purse strings saying: Let us not spend too much. Mr. Speaker, when this House, on December 19 last, gave a first class burial to Bill C-44 to increase the salaries of members of parliament, the Public Service Alliance was protesting on the CBC and English and French television stations. The President of the public servants union, of those "creatures", said that members of parliament were paid too much, that it was disgusting, that enough was enough, that members of parliament were setting a bad example with their salary increase, and that those salaries were exaggerated. That is what I heard on the air that the Minister wants to control where the President of the union representing the public servants of those "creatures" expressed his views.
Mr. Speaker, tonight the House is considering a bill to create a "creature". That does not mean it will not serve the interests of the Canadians and this House. That means that it will provide jobs for Canadians, and it will become another superstructure of civil servants. How much will they be paid? How many times a year will they meet? What will be the respective and specific terms of reference of every member? There will be nine full-time and ten part-time, for a total of 19, as provided in the act.
Let us try and see, Mr. Speaker. Those very people who passed judgment on members of parliament, protected in

doing so by certain governments and NDP members, had this to say at clause 7(1):
Each full-time member shall be paid a salary to be fixed by the Governor in Council-
What is the salary, Mr. Speaker? I ask the minister through you. What will the salary be?
... and each part-time member shall be paid such fees for attendances at meetings of the Commission or any committee thereof or at any public hearing before the Commission that he is requested by the Chairman to attend as are fixed by by-law of the Commission.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the catch. Friends of the government will probably be appointed, as a political reward, to the Commission, and they will provide for their salaries and expense accounts through internal economy. Newspapermen will know nothing about that. They do not attend those meetings of the Commission. Nor do hon. members. No one will be able to judge them because they will be answerable to no one but a silent minister in this House who will tell us, as in the case of the CBC: Listen, the CBC is answerable to me, but this information is privileged. Mr. Speaker, those people will get paid, believe you me! But when the hon. members ask for a salary increase, people judge them, ask them to account for themselves: yet, the salaries paid those people come from the same source as those of the members of parliament.
Paragraph (2), Mr. Speaker, and I know this will be of interest to my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) of the New Democratic Party: he understands those things; he is here to defend the interests of our fellow-citizens rather than those of the civil servants. I am sure of that. He agrees with me.
Paragraph (2) says this:
Each member is entitled to be paid such ... expenses ...
He is ordered to do so by law, Mr. Speaker, which is not the case for the people's elected representatives.
Subclause 7(2) of this bill stipulates that:
... be paid such travelling and living expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties as are fixed by by-law of the Commission.
It would be fantastic, Mr. Speaker, if we could also operate by by-law, whatever the Canadian people may think, building an empire of civil servants, such as unemployment insurance offices, the Polymer Corporation, the CBC, which are answerable to nobody in this House nor to the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put these remarks on record so that the same people who read in Hansard about the outcry against the salaries of MPs can see what is being done in this House about the establishment of a Radio-television Commission.
The minister who wanted to make sure that these people would be well paid before beginning to work indcluded two clauses to that effect, clauses 7 and 11. Surely he is not responsible for that, because in that case as in others, civil servants stick together.
Clause 11, subclause (c), in fact the first three pages of this bill, Mr. Speaker, do not deal with broadcasting protection and Canadian cable T.V. In fact, these are only dealt with in the schedule. The first six pages of this bill, Mr. Speaker, do not deal with the interests of Canadian people, nor with the use of airwaves, nor with private
March 4, 1975

interests or the bereavement of monopolies, nor even with the protection of Canadian interests with respect to the benefit foreign countries might derive from airwave use. In fact, the first six or seven pages of this bill aim at making sure that the civil servants employed will be well paid, well fed, will sleep well and have adequate transportation, and that everything will be handsomely provided for by the state's treasury. The broad objects of those people are outlined in the schedule.
Madam Speaker, this is how clause 11, subclause (c) reads:
11. The Commission may make by-laws ...
(c) fixing the fees to be paid to part-time members of the Commission for attendance at meetings of the Commission or any committee
thereof or at public hearings ...
Madam Speaker, we are in the process of establishing a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study the immigration policy after the green paper on immigration. Members of Parliament will travel throughout the country doing exactly the same job as those civil servants besides listening to citizens, which civil servants don't. And those hon. members will not be paid for the work, but they will do exactly the same thing. They will carry out additional activities, but they will not get any complementary salary. Their expenses will not be paid, and on the contrary, everything will be at their own expense.
Madam Speaker, a bill is being introduced today. The members of the commission have not yet started to work, but they are assured that they will be paid at a rate determined not by the minister, not by the representatives of the people, not by Parliament either, but by themselves: that is what appears under "by-laws" in clause 11, subclause (c).
How many times will they meet every year? Members of Parliament meet I do not know how many hours and days every year. It is 9.15 p.m. just now, and none of us will receive any overtime pay because the House will adjourn around 10.30 p.m. The same thing happens three times a week. So, these people are going to meet, as provided under clause 10. Well, that remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, it is our duty to study legislation. Clause 10 reads as follows:
10. (2) The Commission shall meet at least six times in each year.
What a big success!
It is a real shame, Madam Speaker. I want the minister to know that before dealing with broadcasting, we should have a policy of equity between members of parliament and those who are merely appointed to administer the statutes passed by Parliament.
I feel that if we wanted to be logical in this House, we should see to it that the same rules, self-discipline, regulations and obligations that apply to us also apply to those civil servants who make fun of us when we vote ourselves salary increases. Then, we could listen to what they have to say.
Madam Speaker, my greatest source of frustration as a member is to have someone dictate to me some regulations about which I have no say and which are meant to be complementary to the legislation which I passed in the House. We pass the legislation, the officials make the
Broadcasting
regulations and finally we no longer recognize the bill originally passed, because it has been so much altered by public servants.
Madam Speaker, public servants disguise and systematically destroy our legislation. We, the representatives of the people can take any legislation and we will see what finally happens to it. Public servants, destroy, distort and systematically spoil the legislation by making regulations to annoy our fellow citizens. Paid by whom and how? God alone knows and perhaps also the minister. It is not sure and there is no proof of it. It appears in the bill: by-laws.
Well, Madam Speaker, I think that the officials must realize that it is very well to study the legislation, that it is very well to pass it, but those who will read Hansard tomorrow, must be aware whether they are French-speaking or English-speaking, from Quebec or British Columbia, that the members of this House intend to do their work and want to be equitably treated.
I am not speaking tonight to get a salary increase. The people know that I am in favour of it. I do not hide the fact. However, Madam Speaker, we have succeeded in bringing to a standstill that strong majority government which used to say: Give us a majority! They are there. They asked for a 50 per cent increase. Faced with NDP blackmailers and conniving reporters, they backed down to 30 per cent. Then, they retreated further still and today the same bill has been shelved because they are afraid of public opinion. Meanwhile what is that so-called strong majority government doing? Well, it is laughing at the members and introducing a bill to give unlimited powers enabling an internal committee to control broadcasting.
Madam Speaker, I think that the Liberal members are cowards and the servants of great financial interests-this is obvious-but in the case of public servants, it has now become a sure thing.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments at the end of today's debate on Bill C-5 which, for every member of Parliament, is nonetheless very important. We have been talking for a long time about the possibility to improve telecommunications, today we have before us a bill which provides for the establishment of a national commission responsible at the national level for everything related to communications.
As some of my colleagues of all parties, I have had the opportunity to make my views known to the responsible minister. First, I would like to say that I agree with some comments which have been made in this House on this bill. At the outset, I would like particularly to support my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who did make some appropriate comments this afternoon, particularly about Quebec. We know quite well that the respect of the provinces must be preserved. As for us, we regret and we condemn, in any case, and if I am to believe the comments made by the three opposition parties, I think that we severely condemn the government's centralizing policy in various fields.
Thus, last week, we examined Bill C-49, and we urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to wait until after the meeting with the ministers responsible for taxation and especially royalties, which he refused to do. This

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting
meeting will of course take place after the decision was taken; we shall have a legislation which, once more, will be followed by a meeting of the provincial ministers of communications in a few weeks, and, once more, we have to take a decision before the meeting takes place. However, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that it would be so easy to wait until the results of the meeting are known, that it would be so easy to take advantage of this meeting to make a legislation which might meet, I say meet, Madam Speaker, the wishes of the provinces.
But no. Once again, the government quickens the pace and wants the legislation to be passed as quickly as possible. The provinces will be consulted later. They refuse to admit that these decisions are unilateral. Within a week, they will be talking once again of a viable, profitable federalism that is interesting for the provinces. And they want the provinces to be perfectly happy under our system which is frustrating for several of them.
This afternoon, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) talked about the position of the Quebec Minister of Communications. In the last two years, I think, the Quebec government has made representations on several occasions. It stated its position on communications. I heard some members, including my colleague on my left, who talked about respect for the provinces, about a policy geared to the needs and aspirations of the provinces. We want a legislation that would take national unity into account and, of course, we serve this cause by attacking all the problems we know of. How can we talk of national unity when we refuse to consider seriously the representations of the provinces?
It was clearly established that several provinces gave their support to the province of Quebec in a particular field called cablevision. We know perfectly, well that it is unthinkable to aim at national unity if we do not respect the wish of the provinces. And I wonder to what extent the present government is aware of the problem. On several occasions, Madam Speaker, I discussed with members of the opposition or even government members from Quebec who are certainly sensitive to the problems of their province and who felt the need to come and serve Quebec. But how can they serve it?
I heard my colleagues from other provinces who have that responsibility of meeting the aspirations of their provinces. We, of the Progressive Conservative Party, were being accused as recently as last week of having responded only to the Alberta proposal on the oil issue. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that this provides me with another opportunity to commend the people of Alberta for standing up for a natural resource within their own limits as recognized by the constitution.
Is it possible today in face of the legislation that was brought in to keep quiet and let the government introduce a bill to set up a national commission, to set up a national policy, knowing quite well that the government on several occasions recognized regional disparities, marked differences between areas and provinces? How can anyone think, whether it be in the area of energy with the people of Alberta or in the area of communications or cultural matters, of setting up a national policy that would meet

the aspirations of all Canadians without bearing consideration for the ethnic groups that make up this country and particularly the two founding groups? It is unthinkable, Madam Speaker. So they can talk to me of national harmony, a policy that could meet the aspirations of those founding groups, those ethnic groups, those provinces, those marked differences at the national level, and in the area of communications it's the same thing.
So, Madam Speaker, I would like to say this to respond in the affirmative to the government of Quebec that is not a government for which I worked on a regular basis, on the contrary. But I think my responsibility vis-a-vis my commitments prompts me to rise to the aspirations of my province, as the people of Alberta did so well to the aspirations of their province on the oil issue. Other provinces will also have to respond to their own needs, and I think in that way we can create a national harmony that will meet the objective we pursue of building a country in which there would be an understanding.
The Quebec provincial minister in charge of communications said two years ago, and repeated, the following: Quebec states it has exclusive jurisdiction in this area. Cable television is an undertaking of a local nature for the purposes of the British North America Act. It can be quite clearly identified geographically, contrary to airwaves, and we see no reason why it should be under federal responsibility. Of course the federal government feels cable TV is only an extension of radio and television broadcasting. We submit that contention does not hold. Because cable TV is essentially a means of communication, just as the telephone.
I believe every member realizes that this area in particular must meet the needs and mentality of a province or an area. The minister goes on to say:
It is currently used mainly to rebroadcast television programs. Cable television however will have in the years to come a very diversified range of applications going well beyond retransmission of TV programs. In that context, we see no reason to support federal reasoning in this area.
The Quebec minister in charge of communications further stated, and I quote:
As you may see, the Quebec government's view contradicts in no way the federal role in communications. It simply emphasizes that Canada is a federation comprised of eleven governments, which eleven governments have various substantial responsibilities in the field of communications. The situation would be very different if Canada were a centrally unified state. But such is not the case, for very precise reasons you are aware of. Since we live in a federation, each level of government must be allowed to truly fulfill its purposes. This in no way balkanizes Canada, notwithstanding claims to the contrary; quite the opposite, the eleven governments can very well agree on certain national criteria in the field of communications, which should become the parameters for a truly national communications policy; it would then be the responsibility of each government to implement that policy, within its own jurisdiction. In our opinion, it is not absolutely necessary that everything be centralized in Ottawa in the name of national unity which, in such a case, becomes instead national uniformity. In fact, we feel that Canada is not a uniform country, far from it, and that true national unity derives precisely from the promotion and vitality of its various cultures.
This is, Madam Speaker, what the Quebec minister responsible for communications was saying hardly a year ago. And since then, we are aware of the conflict between the federal and the Quebec governments, we also know that all provinces do not readily accept the federal government's propositions being made at this time.
Therefore, I am taking these few minutes, Madam Speaker, to urge the government to seriously consider the

problem, especially since it has about 60 members from Quebec. I think these members have a responsibility towards Quebec as the other members of other provinces have also towards their own province.
Could it be possible to believe that because of a party line, as representatives of a province, our interests and our responsibilities are betrayed? I venture to think it could not, Madam Speaker. In my opinion, the government of Quebec, not only through its Minister of Communications, but also in many other fields and for a number of years, has made representations to the federal government which unfortunately were not received as well as they should have been in this particular field, considering the peculiar situation of the province of Quebec.
I shall perhaps offend or irritate a few members. I think that we must recognize in this matter the particular position of the province of Quebec, and I challenge anybody to say anything to the contrary. The government members know what I mean. The government members will not dare say that I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I should have liked them to take position and state that Quebec is wrong when it recommends privileged positions in communications, as Quebec is willing to acknowledge privileged positions for any English-speaking province, according to its needs, its mentality and its traditions.
Thus I think it is important to underline this aspect and I dare believe that the responsible French-speaking minister of Quebec will be able to meet the demands of the Quebec government and the wishes of a founding nation which does not hesitate to recognize the arguments put forward by the other provinces. I do not accept, Madam Speaker, that we be called separatists when we defend the interests of Quebec in this House or that the Quebec Minister of Communications be labelled a separatist when we defend him, because he deeply and sincerely meets a well-founded wish we have, as Quebecers.
All those who tried to call separatists the responsible minister or Quebecers who do not agree with a centralizing policy of the federal government are wrong. They are not necessarily separatists, but they have good intentions, they are deeply nationalistic, they surely believe in Canada and recognize the marked differences in this country. On behalf of these differences, on behalf of national harmony, we must thus search for much more than national unity. Mr. L'Allier rejects uniformity. I happen to be one of those who reject uniformity. I have respect for my colleagues and hope that we can find policies that will stick to the real facts and to the regional and provincial context, so that we can definitely speak, of a viable federalism.
Madam Speaker, we cannot otherwise believe in a viable federalism. Let us not ask ourselves any longer why, both in Quebec and in other provinces, problems add up every day, and why, particularly in Quebec, thousands of Quebecers have ceased to believe in federalism because of certain centralizing policies overlooking representations made by the provincial government and the context of important differences in Canada.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that the minister could have waited till the meeting is held in a short time from now instead of putting immediately this bill before us. He could have discussed the matter once more, even if
Broadcasting
only to try one last time to give an affirmative and satisfactory answer to the Quebec government.
I have serious doubts that Quebec would be displeased with the communications policy. I shall never hesitate to live up to the aspirations of Quebec and I think this is the sacred duty, of every hon. member from that province. Of course, I do not want to be the only one to do so. It may be believed that we are fulfilling that obligation in a satisfactory way. I think that policy sufficiently important, and I know the minister well enough, Madam Speaker, to be familiar with his past record, truly in the Quebec spirit, to respect, to make the ultimate effort to fulfil that province's aspirations, as Quebecers are expecting it. I do hope that the minister will give us the replies we want.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I must advise the House that should the minister speak now he will close the debate.


Gérard Pelletier: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few comments to correct certain false impressions which I believe have been left by some members who spoke earlier.

When the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) said that the federal government had refused to negotiate with the provinces, he certainly did not know the record very well. I cannot admit that this is true because I know how hard I have been working at it and how many contacts I have had with each and all of the communications ministers in the various provinces. I really cannot accept this statement, and I hope that we will have an occasion to explain what we have been doing. Had the hon. member only read the correspondence I tabled a few weeks ago in this very chamber, he would have known that his statement was incorrect.
If our Tory friends on the other side of the House are very concerned with financial inflation, they surely are not concerned very much-at least not the hon. member for Regina East-with verbal inflation. When he said, for instance, that the communications mess was crippling our country, I should say that the vigour of the argument has no equal, except perhaps the weakness of evidence, because he did not even try to say how communications are crippling this country. It is quite the contrary, when one thinks that we have one of the best telephone systems in the whole world, that we have the first domestic communications satellite system and one of the most advanced systems of computer communications.
The hon. member is just satisfied to say that a communications mess is crippling our country, without giving any evidence, and he would have to be a little more logical than that. At least he should state some facts, in committee or somewhere else, if he wants to persuade anyone including, I suspect, himself. The most dangerous comment that he made is that this bill is presented to the House without the consent of the provinces. This goes as well for the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who obviously was talking through his hat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 4, 1975
Broadcasting


Gérard Pelletier: At the first conference more than a year ago, I told all the provinces that this bill would be presented and that it would not change anything except to tidy up the system and join two existing regulatory bodies. No province made any objection to our presenting what we called in the department and in our talks with the provinces the first phase of the legislation. Not one province objected to that. They all admitted this was a housekeeping operation on the part of the federal government. If hon. members had read the bill carefully they would have seen it applies only to federally regulated societies, corporations, agencies and what-not. So, this is not done without their consent and we have nothing to wait for in this case. Not one province objected to our presenting this legislation at this time.
I do not have much to say about the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) except that his denunciation of the CTC lacked a foundation in evidence, and some of his rhetorical questions had already been answered before he asked them in his speech. He asked, for instance, where the government stands on the indexing of telephone rates of Bell Canada. The position of the government was put clearly. Perhaps he was on holiday and did not get the press release. The statement I made, after there had been a cabinet decision, was clear. It was that the government was not espousing this position but that it would not stifle the discussion of any question, including that one, by the CTC. He wondered what is the position of the CTC. Let him wait. The hearings are just starting and every intervener will be in the position to make his case. Only after that has been done will the CTC express an opinion, because it will genuinely try to explore a question and find a satisfying answer. [Translation]
Let me now quickly come to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). He too indulges in verbal inflation when he says that nothing was undertaken since 1963 to develop the technology of communications in Canada. The only thing I can say is that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe just did not keep abreast of progress in that field. He too does not know what the development of computer-communications was, and I could brief him if ever he can spare the time. He too omits Telesat Canada which is a world premiere for our country. He also forgets about a lot of progress made with respect to the use of cable, television and broadcasting, and his assertion is senseless. But another remark by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe baffles me even more, and we cannot get on with the debate on that bill without challenging such a statement. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe says: According to the CRTC, the cable would be under federal jurisdiction. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has only been a short time in this Parliament, because if he had been here in 1969, he would have realized that no jurisdictional powers were granted by the CRTC but through the act, which as a matter of fact was upheld everytime there was an appeal against it since it was passed.
Such a decision did not originate in the CRTC, but in Parliament, which the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe is a member of, maybe not for very long, but nevertheless a

member of. He should realize, and so should the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) as well, that the argument he is talking about was not started by the federal government against the provincial government, but that the provincial government of Quebec did so by trespassing on a jurisdiction which every court decision acknowledged to be a federal one, by passing an act whose provisions are still being challenged in courts, since that act was passed without any consultation with the federal government.
And when the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe put forward the testimony of Mr. Henderson against the federal jurisdiction with respect to communications, I wonder if he realizes that his source was the great supporter of American interests versus Canadian broadcasting in a recent case before the federal court.
In connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), Madam Speaker, I merely want to say that I never saw a man breaking down an open door with such vigour. He said that we are setting up a new agency. He did not read the bill. In fact, we are making one out of two. We are not setting up a new one. Because we are combining two agencies, there will be one less, according to my calculations. I do not know where the hon. member learned his arithmetic. He also finds it shocking that the bill should mention the setting up of a regulatory body before setting forth its responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has any spare time. Since 1969 and even 1967, he should have spent a little time reading the Broadcasting Act which is still in force and sets forth, in Part II, all the responsibilities and functions of this body, In a bill aimed at combining two regulatory agencies, we were not going to include each and every section of the Broadcasting Act. May I suggest to the hon. member to refer to Part II of the Broadcasting Act which was adopted in 1967. He had eight years to read it, which gave him ample time, it seems to me. He would find in it everything he was shocked not to find in the bill before us tonight.
As to the salaries of MPs, I must say that I somewhat agree with him, although I do not quite see how it is relevant to this debate. On the broadcasting issue, however, I must say that he broke down an open door, but luckily for him, it was not an open window because we would have lost him for future debates.
Madam Speaker, that sums up my remarks. I thank all the members who took part in this debate. I believe we will be able to clarify many questions, some of which were most relevant, put by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), in committee as well as during the subsequent stages this bill will go through.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Considering that under the Standing Orders of the House, whenever a minister rises he closes the debate, I had hoped that the minister would take this opportunity to specify what salary will be provided by the internal administration for those people, so that it will be recorded
March 4, 1975

in Hansard, so that readers may compare the salary paid to high officials to that of members of parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is as follows: Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga), seconded by Mr. Lalonde, moves that Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the Broadcasting Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I should like to remind the hon. member that once the question is put, no point of order is allowed. Order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, my point of order is that this motion is out of order. Twice you pointed out that the sponsor of this bill was the Minister of Communications, seconded by Mr. Lalonde, but the latter is absent at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Correction: Mr. Sharp instead of Mr. Lalonde. I am told that everything is in order since Mr. Lalonde seconded the motion at the beginning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The next item of business will be Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I had expected to do something I have never in my life done before, make a speech on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), something I would not have been able to do with great success. It being so close to ten o'clock I wonder whether it might not be called ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Madam Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was to be first on the adjournment debate. He is not yet here. He is attending a committee meeting. If the House wishes, I will get him.


John Mercer Reid: Perhaps we could begin with the members in the opposition who are here. There are five committees sitting this evening and that is why they are not here at
Adjournment Debate
this point. Perhaps we might proceed by taking those questions that are scheduled for this evening in the order in which members opposite appear here.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we proceed with question No. 3?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, before we go on to the questions, will the government House leader inform us of the business for tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is the intention to proceed with Bill C-50 which Your Honour called this evening. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), will be here to make the speech he intended to make for this purpose. If by chance we are able to conclude the debate on that item, we will then proceed to the western grain stabilization bill, Bill C-41.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Madam Speaker, we have sent for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to come to the House as quickly as possible. If the House will be patient-


John Mercer Reid: I wonder then if we could start with the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis).


Robert Elgin McKinley: He is not yet here.


Mr. Nystrom:: We have the same problem, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is not here. He is the second on the list. We will have to wait a few minutes for him.


John Mercer Reid: In that case, Madam Speaker, perhaps we could rest for five minutes until the members show up.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, if he is anything at all, ought to be the keeper of the constitution of this country, said that he will not initiate any action to bring Quebec's Bill 22 before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Bill 22, no matter from what end it is viewed, is perhaps the most divisive piece of legislation that has ever appeared on a federal or provincial statute book. Quite aside from the fact that it was rammed through the

March 4, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Quebec assembly, it makes a mockery of the official languages policy of the federal government. It is a denial of justice to the English speaking minority in Quebec and to those who came to Canada from other parts of the world.
There are aspects of the bill about which there can be a real question as to their constitutionality. Basically, it is an attempt by a provincial government to amend the British North America Act. It has a profound effect on the rights of Canadians to learn and to have their children taught in the language of their choice. In the long run it will do more to damage the relationship in our country between the two major language groups than anything that has preceded it.
The bill places an astounding reliance on bureaucrats, a state of affairs that is questionable in itself. Rule by regulation is the order of the day. I cannot imagine anything more dangerous where basic rights are seen to be threatened. However, what does the Prime Minister do? First, he will not disallow the bill. He used as his excuse that the remedy of disallowance has not been used for 30 years. Perhaps that is a greater tribute to the wisdom of provincial governments than an indication of the obsolescence of the method.
The Prime Minister was asked if the federal government would refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada so that this smouldering time-bomb could be laid to rest one way or another. The terror of the fund-raising dinner in Montreal is not such a terror after all. He refused to do that. I then asked him the question which is the subject of this debate tonight. In effect, he does not have the courage to take action himself and so he hides behind other groups.
I asked the Prime Minister whether he would aid financially those who do in fact have that courage. He did it with the Indians in James Bay. However, again the great leader evaded, slithered and slid away. In the House he stated it would be considered, but outside the House he is reported to have said in effect that no one ought to hold their breath. Those who paid $125 to attend his fund raising dinner should ask to have their money refunded.
When asked what instructions would be given to federal counsel intervening in a private action, he avoided answering the question. He called it hypothetical. Well, Madam Speaker, Bill 22 is not hypothetical. It is a reality. The problems are real. The people it affects are real. Its authoritative power is real. Its divisive quality is real indeed. In the judgment of many, it is a blot on the legislative landscape of this country. It ought to be dealt with swiftly and finally, and not allowed to linger and fester as an irritant to confederation. I have to confess that I am left with more than a lingering doubt about the political courage of the Prime Minister when he deals with the government of Quebec.
I have not met any right-thinking person who does not have a sympathetic understanding of or desire to see the French language and the French culture survive in Canada, but surely no one can agree that this ought to be at the expense of the rights of others. That is what the reaction to this bill is all about. The bill should be tested, and tested immediately, so that the question can be laid to rest, and the Prime Minister ought not hide behind the skirts of others to bring this about.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the Canadian constitution makes it quite clear that the responsibility for passing this kind of legislation belongs to the government of Quebec, not to the government of Canada. The government of Quebec was elected in a democratic election, with one of the largest majorities that has been seen in modern Canadian political history. It is, therefore, obvious that it is acting within its legislative competence.
To deal with the other argument concerning whether the federal government ought to interfere, I would point out to the hon. member that the constitutional foundations of the legislation are apparently well based. Even more important, the basis on which that act is based is the Manitoba Act, passed in 1892 by the government of Manitoba, which at that time could not be accused of racism, at least as against English speaking people.
The government of Canada does have and does acknowledge a special responsibility toward the Indians in Quebec, particularly the James Bay Indians. Under Section 91 of the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, the government of Canada does indeed have a special responsibility. Even more important is the fact that when the land in question was transferred to the government of Quebec in 1912, the government of Quebec did not come to a settlement with the Indians in the north. Thus, in addition to the general responsibility of the government of Canada toward the Indians of James Bay there is a particular responsibility because no land settlement had been made. It seems to me the hon. gentleman is trying to bring in through the back door of parliament something he could not bring in through the front door, namely, to argue a Quebec matter.


PENITENTIARIES-USE OF BURWASH INDUSTRIAL FARM AS MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, on February 14 I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) whether he would consider upgrading the Burwash Institution at Nickel Belt to medium security status rather than spend $7 million on building a new medium security prison somewhere near Barrie. I pointed out to the minister that 200 jobs representing a $2 million payroll to the Sudbury region would be lost to northeastern Ontario. The minister's reply was very interesting and I should like to quote it:
We have already examined this possibility with the government of Ontario. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the Burwash Institution would be satisfactory for federal needs. First of all, our policy now is to move into smaller institutions which accommodate 150 to 180 inmates. Second, we try to locate the institutions as near as possible to the major population areas from which inmates come. Our need is in southern Ontario and not in northern Ontario, because most of the inmates come from southern Ontario. For these reasons we do not feel that Burwash is suitable at the present time.
Let me deal with the first point the minister made-I am positive the parliamentary secretary will make it again tonight, namely, that the present policy is to move into smaller institutions which accommodate 150 to 180 inmates. First, let me point out that facilities at Burwash are located in three camps. The most appropriate, meeting

the department's new policy, is Camp Bison, which houses between 180 and 200 prisoners.
The minister's observation that Burwash is a rather large institution requiring a lot of work and great expense indicates that he is not aware of the situation. Yes, the Burwash Camp is old and decrepit and ought to be torn down. But the Bison Camp has excellent facilities. The provincial government has spent around $4 million over the last four years in improving those facilities. First, it built a new gymnasium at a cost of $1 million-it was opened in October, 1971. Then it built a sports building complex for $40,000, a bridge at the Bison Camp for $5,000, and a new staff quarters, constructed in 1973, for $500,000. Road servicing in the settlement cost $30,000, and an inmate visiting room was provided for $350,000.
The provincial government built an entirely new sewage complex for $1 million, and made renovations to employee homes at the settlement costing $250,000. Brand new housing for single male guards and new homes for employees accounted for a further $200,000, and it even put in a new floor in the main prison for $4,000. The Bell Telephone Company put in new cables and connections at a cost of $40,000, and an entirely new plate shop, garage and laundry were provided for a further $1 million. Heating of living units was converted from coal to oil in 1972. Indeed it also laid a new main steam pipe for $95,000, and renovated homes to provide accommodation for guards-two apartments per home-which were finished. The camp then closed and they were never occupied.
The second argument that the minister proposes is that the new policy is to locate institutions as near as possible to major population centres from which the inmates come. I would point out that Burwash is near Sudbury, North Bay, Manitoulin Island, Parry Sound, etc., and one should note that the population in this area is between 200,000 and 350,000 people. Surely this is a large enough population area.
Moreover, if the minister is sincere about closeness to the homes of the prisoners, what about those prisoners from Sudbury and surrounding districts? Obviously they are going to be rehabilitated away from the areas where they grew up if the new prison is built somewhere in southern Ontario.
The third point I should like to make, Madam Speaker, is the economic one. Burwash was the fourth largest secondary industry in the Sudbury area, and when it closed it took a severe toll on the economic life of small communities near the prison, communities such as Estaire. Property values are down 50 per cent from a year ago, and small businesses have been forced to close.
It is also of interest to point out that the people who live around the Burwash prison settlement are accustomed to the prison being within the precincts of their community and have never viewed the prisoners with any kind of distaste, or adopted an arm's length approach. I understand that in the Barrie area, where the new prison is being concentrated, many communities are up in arms at the fact that prisoners are being brought into their community.
When I listen to ministers of the government talking so sanctimoniously about wanting to develop those parts of
Adjournment Debate
our country that lack secondary industry and about the diversification of job opportunities, when I hear them talking about discouraging people from living in large urban centres, and when I witness decisions being made to create more jobs in large urban centres near Toronto, then I know they are either mad or hypocritical, or both.
The fact of the matter is that Camp Bison can easily be converted into a medium security prison for approximately 180 prisoners at a cost far less than $7 million of the taxpayers' money. Jobs will come to the Sudbury district. The prisoners will be close to a large urban centre, Sudbury, consisting pf 90,000 persons, and which offers a university community college, several large athletic facilities and three very good hospitals.
Once again I urge the minister to review this decision. If he wishes he can send his officials to investigate the facility that I have described tonight. I am quite prepared to accompany them on such a visit. I ask him to revise the decision that has been made and to take advantage of the Camp Bison facility to establish a medium security prison in our part of the country.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has made a powerful argument for the province of Ontario to reopen the Burwash Industrial Farm. He has indicated the amount of money that the province of Ontario has recently invested in this facility, and I think his case is certainly convincing that the provincial government ought to reopen the farm. However, he has not made the case that the federal government ought to take over the facility.
The Canadian penitentiary service has examined this possibility following an offer from the province of Ontario to sell the institution. Unfortunately its conclusion has been that Burwash would not be satisfactory for federal penitentiary needs.
It is now the policy, as the hon. member has indicated, that the Canadian penitentiary service should move into smaller institutions which will accommodate no more than 150 to 180 inmates. The service attempts to locate these institutions as close as possible to the major population centres from which the inmates come. I should point out to the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who like me is a member from northern Ontario, that our population is peace loving, does not get into trouble or require the utilization of the aforementioned service. The need for such services tends to be much more prevalent among those who come from larger centres in the industrialized east. I am sure many eastern members here would agree with those comments.
In any event, the other factor of considerable importance is the resocialization process which has now become a great part of the penitentiary service and which involves renewing or maintaining close family relationships, which are again facilitated by placing the prisoners in centres near their homes.
It is now the policy of the Canadian penitentiary service to house inmates of maximum, medium and minimum security risk in different institutions. Based on a study of

March 4, 1975
Adjournment Debate
inmates' places of origin, it has been established that the need for federal institutions is in southern Ontario and not in the northern part of the province, for some of the reasons I gave previously.
However, following the study made by the penitentiary service regarding the possible use of Burwash, it was established that remodelling older existing facilities to meet current requirements could be just as expensive as building new facilities. If the alternative of remodelling Burwash had been accepted because of financial considerations, the location would still have been unsatisfactory.
Consequently, and after due consideration of the economic implications of the closing of this institution by the government of the province of Ontario, it has been agreed that in the best interests of the Canadian penitentiary service, its staff and particularly the inmates for which it is responsible, it was necessary to build the type of institution required closer to the geographical areas where such facilities are needed.
I might say in conclusion that if the facts are as the hon. member has indicated in his presentation, then the government still should-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The time allotted for the hon. gentleman has expired.


AGRICULTURE-INEQUITY BETWEEN TARIFF ON IMPORTED CHEESE AND CANADIAN CHEESE IMPORTED BY EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Madam Speaker, on February 6 as recorded at page 2967 of Hansard I asked questions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) regarding the Canadian cheese industry. In doing so I pointed out that Canadian cheddar, which previously was exported to European Common Market countries in large quantity, was now facing EEC import duties of about 65 cents a pound, indeed as high as 67 cents. Therefore the volume of these cheddar exports had slowed down to a trickle.
At the same time I also pointed out to the minister that European soft cheeses were coming into Canada in large volume because our import duties, rather than being 65 cents or 67 cents a pound, were only one cent to three and a half cents per pound.
On February 6 I asked the minister what he was going to do about this apparent gross inequity. I pointed out that many Canadian cheese producers, because they are on a quota system for cheddar production, also produce specialty or soft cheeses, and the sales of these cheeses in the Canadian market have dropped drastically in volume, by as much as 25 per cent to 30 per cent in the last two months because of the inability of Canadian producers to compete with European imports in the specialty cheese market. On February 6 the minister indicated that the matter would be reviewed.
Yesterday in the House of Commons, as reported at page 3712 of Hansard, I asked the minister whether the matter had been reviewed and what action, if any, was being taken. The minister told us that the matter was going to be discussed in cabinet in a few days.

Later during the question period yesterday the minister decided to be a little more frank with us and announced, as recorded at page 3715, that an agreement had been reached so that commencing in April and continuing until 1979 our cheddar will be allowed into the EEC without import duty. This is welcome news, not only for cheese producers but also, I suggest, for Europeans who will be able to consume the finest cheese in the world, hopefully at reasonable prices.
Unfortunately the minister did not tell us about the fate of Canadian produced specialty or soft cheeses which cannot compete here in Canada with European imports. One might be tempted to ask whether our cheese producers are less efficient than their European counterparts, but this is not the case.
What is happening is simply that European governments are paying subsidies to their cheese producers who export to Canada. Therefore Canadians must not only compete with European cheese makers, they must also attempt to compete with subsidies paid by foreign governments. I trust the minister realizes how difficult, if not impossible, is this type of competition.
I cannot emphasize too much the importance of these Canadian specialty cheeses. Generally they are produced by small companies in rural areas. In other words, I am not talking about the large companies such as Kraft. I am trying to speak for the small cheese plants throughout our country.
In Ontario, for example, a typical cheese plant cannot operate at a sufficient percentage of its capacity to be profitable if it produces only cheddar. This is because of the Ontario quota system which restricts cheddar production. In order to be efficient these small plants developed good and nourishing specialty cheeses. They made substantial investments in capital equipment and they marketed their products successfully, all without government help. As a result their plants were profitable and they provided employment in our rural areas. Now they find themselves in the serious position of not being able to compete with foreign products which have the unfair advantage of lower prices because of a foreign government subsidy.
Therefore, while I welcome the news about the lifting of European Common Market import duties on our cheddar, I cannot help but be extremely concerned about the other factor that is essential to the viability of an average small cheese plant, and that is the necessity of being able to market its Canadian specialty cheeses. It is important to realize that such plants in many cases rely on the production of both types of cheese to keep their facilities in operration. In other words, many plants would operate at a loss if they were restricted to cheddar production only.
What is particularly disturbing to me are recent news reports which indicate that it may take some time before this problem is resolved. I refer the minister to a recent feature article by James Rush in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 26. One paragraph reads as follows:
Canadian officials, however, warn that, confident as they are that some accommodation will be worked out with the community (EEC) it could still take some months to resolve the situation.
If this is an accurate view, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, there are in my opinion two danger signals. First
March 4, 1975

is the time that our officials seem to feel that it will take to work out the problem. This raises the simple question, can many of our cheese plants operate in a loss position for this period of time? Second, I would hope that our government is not concerning itself simply with the Cheddar problem to the exclusion of the specialty cheese problem. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that the viability of many plants depends on the production of both products.
The minister is not one who is opposed to normal free trade. I point out to him, Mr. Speaker, that when a foreign government subsidizes one of its products which it is exporting to Canada, that is not free trade in the sense I understand free trade.
Third, we have had a history in certain agricultural production of cutting off our nose to spite our face. In other words, we accepted the importation of foreign products. Canadian producers could not compete with these imports and were forced out of business. One might say this was fair to the consumer. We might say a consumer is entitled to the best deal he can get in buying a certain product, whether it is produced in Canada or elsewhere. But, in the long run, it has been the consumer who has suffered, because as soon as there is no Canadian production to compete with the foreign product, the price of the foreign product goes way up and the consumer pays the inflated price. I use as obvious examples the following: the wool industry, the baler twine industry and the sugar beet industry. I only urge that the minister does not allow the Canadian cheese industry to suffer the unhappy fate of these examples I have just mentioned.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I should like to deal with two points raised by the hon. member, the question of imported cheeses for further processing and the cheddar cheese situation.
Since 1970 the government has maintained controls on imports of cheese for further processing to deal with a threat of disruption of the Canadian industry. At present no cheese for processing is allowed to enter the country with the exception of a small quantity from Finland, based on their traditional trade which existed before 1970.
Adjournment Debate
Cheese for direct consumption, except cheddar and colby, has been allowed to enter freely under general import permit. There have recently been suggestions that some cheese ostensibly imported for direct consumption has in fact been finding its way into processing. We are at present urgently looking into what can be done to correct this situation. When a decision has been reached the House will be informed.
I should like to elaborate a little on the cheddar cheese situation and the outcome of the successful negotiations with the European Economic Community, negotiations which were triggered by the enlargement of the EEC by the British, Danish and Irish entries, in respect of compensation for the impairment of our trading rights. These were conducted under Article XXIV:6. As the hon. member indicated, there were substantial benefits negotiated.
This arrangement applies to aged Canadian cheddar cheese which meets certain agreed price and quality specifications. A fixed levy will amount to 15 EEC units of account per 100 kilograms, just under 8V4 cents per pound at present exchange rates. This represents a big reduction from the current basic EEC levy of 112 units of account per 100 kilograms, or approximately 67 cents per pound.
Because EEC levies are being phased in in Britain over a transitional period, the result of our special arrangement will be that no levy will apply at first, and a full levy of 15 units of account will not come into effect until 1979.
The effective date of arrangement is April 1, 1975. The trade will shortly be provided with full details of the way in which it will operate. The British market has traditionally been of major importance to Canadian cheese producers. During the period 1963 to 1972 annual exports to Britain amounted to some 28 million pounds, approximately $11.2 million in value terms. This represented about 95 per cent of total Canadian cheddar exports. Virtually no Canadian cheese has been exported to Britain since the application of the EEC variable levies two years ago.
Hon. members will recognize the important benefits negotiated by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, March 5, 1975